SEARCH · Geology Reports
Results for “Comprehensive Conservation Plan”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement - Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Complex, consisting of some of the newer properties in the National Wildlife Refuge System, is a work in progress. Offering unique assets to surrounding communities, these lands promise to become some of the premier urban wildlife refuges in the country. At the heart of the refuge complex is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: 16,000 acres of shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie that is home to bison, bald eagles, migratory songbirds, prairie dogs, and much more—all within the Denver Metropolitan area. This comprehensive conservation plan will be the first in the country designed to begin implementing the Refuge System’s new Urban Refuge Initiative. To accomplish this, we analyzed a wide range of options on how best to support up to one million visitors per year without compromising our principal purposes to protect and preserve fish and wildlife and their habitats.
Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement-Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Complex, consisting of some of the newer properties in the National Wildlife Refuge System, is a work in progress. Offering unique assets to surrounding communities, these lands promise to become some of the premier urban wildlife refuges in the country. At the heart of the refuge complex is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: 16,000 acres of shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie that is home to bison, bald eagles, migratory songbirds, prairie dogs, and much more—all within the Denver Metropolitan area. This comprehensive conservation plan will be the first in the country designed to begin implementing the Refuge System’s new Urban Refuge Initiative. To accomplish this, we analyzed a wide range of options on how best to support up to one million visitors per year without compromising our principal purposes to protect and preserve fish and wildlife and their habitats. We are fortunate to have inherited a great deal of infrastructure from the U.S. Army, but we are also constrained by the current condition and layout of these facilities. Some of this infrastructure may be acting as barriers to the public—a condition inconsistent with the purposes of the refuge. Accordingly, we have developed a goal to increase and improve suitable access to the refuge, develop sustainable transportation options, and provide more connections among the units of the refuge complex. This increased access will enable people from all walks of life to visit the refuge. The vision we have developed for the refuge complex calls for the restoration of the refuge’s historical habitats, and the reconnection of people with the natural lands of the refuge and of the region at large using a network consisting of multimodal trails, a far-reaching light-rail system, and the Denver International Airport. This refuge is well positioned to leverage and catalyze early investments to create world-class wildlife habitat and a conservation education facility in the heart of a rapidly growing urban metropolis. So positioned, the refuge represents the ideal intersection of nature and education to transmit the message of conservation, outdoor recreation, and stewardship to future generations. Toward this end, collaboration is essential to the refuge’s future success. We will continue to foster and improve our strong public and private partnerships in the surrounding communities. These partnerships will enable us to act quickly and effectively as we invest in education and outreach efforts to fulfill our potential as a conservation catalyst in neighboring communities, the larger Intermountain West, and the world.
Regional economic impacts of current and proposed management alternatives for Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan must describe the desired future conditions of a Refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located at the south end of California's San Francisco Bay and one of seven refuges in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed Refuge management strategies. For Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan planning, a regional economic analysis provides a means of estimating how current management (No Action Alternative) and proposed management activities (alternatives) affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: (1) it illustrates the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge's contribution to the local community, and (2) it can help in determining whether economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. This report first presents a description of the local community and economy near the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Next, the methods used to conduct a regional economic impact analysis are described. An analysis of the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan management strategies that could affect stakeholders, residents, and the local economy is then presented. The management activities of economic concern in this analysis are: * Spending in the local community by Refuge visitors; * Refuge personnel salary spending; and * Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community.
Regional economic analysis of current and proposed management alternatives for Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan must describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. The Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the refuge must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed refuge management strategies. The purpose of this study was to assess the regional economic implications associated with draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan management strategies. Special interest groups and local residents often criticize a change in refuge management, especially if there is a perceived negative impact to the local economy. Having objective data on economic impacts may show that these fears are overstated. Quite often, the extent of economic benefits a refuge provides to a local community is not fully recognized, yet at the same time the effects of negative changes is overstated. Spending associated with refuge recreational activities, such as wildlife viewing and hunting, can generate considerable tourist activity for surrounding communities. Additionally, refuge personnel typically spend considerable amounts of money purchasing supplies in local stores, repairing equipment and purchasing fuel at the local service stations, and reside and spend their salaries in the local community. For refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan planning, a regional economic assessment provides a means of estimating how current management (no action alternative) and proposed management activities (alternatives) could affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: (1) it illustrates a refuge's contribution to the local community; and (2) it can help in determining whether local economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. It is important to note that the economic value of a refuge encompasses more than just the impacts of the regional economy. Refuges also provide substantial nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged in established markets), such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, educating future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem. However, quantifying these types of nonmarket values was beyond the scope of this study because of time and budget constraints.
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge: Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement
The Connecticut River is treasured by all for its majesty and significance in supporting life along its winding 410-mile passage through urban and rural communities in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Working with our partners, we are inspired to protect and enhance the natural and cultural richness throughout the watershed, especially on lands and waters entrusted to our agency as the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Together with our partners, we design, support, and implement strategic conservation actions across the watershed, and communicate conservation needs and successes through extensive outreach and education programs. On refuge lands, we offer visitor programs and activities that promote an appreciation of the Connecticut River watershed as an intact, interconnected, and healthy ecosystem. Visitors respond to this greater awareness by becoming active stewards of the watershed’s natural and cultural resources. Our actions exemplify the Service’s vital role in conserving the Connecticut River watershed and the refuge’s important contribution to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities, provide a context for resolving issues, guide specific projects, provide rationale for decisions, and offer a defensible link among management actions, refuge purpose(s), Service policy, and the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission. Pursuant to Refuge Planning Policy (602 FW 1, 3, 4), this handbook offers guidance on how to write goals and objectives for national wildlife refuges and provides counsel on their development. While the handbook specifically addresses biology and visitor services, you can also utilize this guidance when developing goals and objectives for other refuge programs. Several assumptions are basic to this handbook. The handbook focuses on the mechanics of writing sound goals and objectives. Detailed guidance on what information to consider, collect, interpret, and synthesize into goals and objectives is beyond the scope of this handbook. It views a vision statement as the synthesis of a refuge’s purpose(s), the Refuge System mission and goals, and other biological, legal, and social concerns in which the refuge has a role. It also assumes a familiarity with the hierarchical nature of planning and where, within a planning process, the writing of goals and objectives occurs. This guidance applies to conceptual management plans, comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs), step-down management plans (e.g., habitat management, visitor services, fire management), or any other planning document incorporating goals and objectives, including strategic documents developed under the Government Performance and Results Act. We intend this guidance for use by an internal audience tasked with writing refuge goals and objectives, primarily refuge managers, biologists, visitor services specialists, planners, and other members of refuge planning teams. Still, it recognizes that we should write goals and objectives so that interested members of the public can understand them, to the extent this does not jeopardize the technical accuracy or reduce the inclusion of necessary information. The terminology and definitions used in this handbook are widely accepted in the planning field and are not inconsistent with more recent application in strategic planning. Perhaps most important, the handbook presumes all goals and objectives must further the specific purpose(s) of the refuge and the broader mission of the Refuge System, as well as be consistent with Refuge Planning Policy and any other relevant Service policy and directives.
Visitor and community survey results for Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge: Completion report
This study was commissioned by the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in support of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Prime Hook NWR or Refuge). The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) mandates a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for every refuge in the system. A refuge CCP outlines goals, objectives, and management strategies for all refuge programs over the next 15 years, while providing opportunities for compatible, wildlifedependent public uses. The plan evaluates refuge wildlife, habitat, land protection, and visitor service priorities during the planning process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; Public Law 91-190:852-859.42, U.S.C. and as Amended (P.L. 94-52 and P.L. 94-83) 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) mandates that the CCP for each refuge must contain an analysis of social and economic conditions (the affected environment) and evaluate social and economic results from likely management scenarios. In addition, public review and comment on alternatives for future management is required. To that end, this research was conducted by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) of the U.S. Geological Survey/Fort Collins Science Center in order to determine how current and proposed CCP planning strategies for Prime Hook NWR could affect: Visitor use Visitor experiences Visitor spending Community residents’ perceptions and opinions Data for this study were collected using a survey administered to visitors to Prime Hook NWR and individuals living in the communities surrounding the Refuge. Surveys were randomly distributed to both consumptive and nonconsumptive use visitors over a one year period (September 2004 to September 2005) to account for seasonal variation in Refuge use. Three hundred thirty-two visitor surveys were returned for a response rate of 80 percent with a confidence interval of ± 5.4. Surveys were also distributed to a stratified random sample of community members in adjacent and surrounding areas (Slaughter Beach, Broadkill Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, Lewes, Milford, and surrounding communities). Four hundred ninety-one surveys from the overall community sample were returned for a response rate of 39 percent with a ± 4.4 confidence interval. Community member results were weighted by U.S. Census Bureau data to correct for age and gender bias, and for community proportionality.
National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2010/2011: Individual refuge results
The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. This data series consists of 53 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. * Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. * Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: - Visitor and Trip Characteristics - Visitor Spending in the Local Communities - Visitors Opinions about This Refuge - Visitor Opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System Topics * Conclusion * References * Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with the frequency results for this refuge. * Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for this refuge. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.
National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2012--Individual refuge results
The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 560 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts nearly 45 million visitors annually, including 34.8 million people who observe and photograph wildlife, 9.6 million who hunt and fish, and nearly 675,000 teachers and students who use refuges as outdoor classrooms. Understanding visitor perceptions of refuges and characterizing their experiences on refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. The Service collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The purpose of the survey was to better understand visitor experiences and trip characteristics, to gauge visitors’ levels of satisfaction with existing recreational opportunities, and to garner feedback to inform the design of programs and facilities. The survey results will inform performance, planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs), visitor services, and transportation planning processes. This Data Series consists of 25 separate data files. Each file describes the results of the survey for an individual refuge and contains the following information: • Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. • Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results.• Refuge Description: A brief description of the refuge location, acreage, purpose, recreational activities, and visitation statistics, including a map (where available) and refuge website link. • Sampling at This Refuge: The sampling periods, locations, and response rate for the refuge. • Selected Survey Results: Key findings for the refuge, including: o Visitor and trip characteristics o Visitor spending in the local communities o Visitors opinions about the refuge o Visitor opinions about National Wildlife Refuge System topics • Conclusion • References Cited • Survey Frequencies (Appendix A): The survey instrument with frequency results for the refuge. • Visitor Comments (Appendix B): The verbatim responses to the open-ended survey questions for the refuge.Individual-refuge results for the 53 participating refuges in the 2010-2011 national effort are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643. Combined results for the 53 participating refuges in the 2010-2011 national effort are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/685/ as part of USGS Data Series 685.
National wildlife refuge visitor survey results: 2010/2011
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national survey of visitors regarding their experiences on national wildlife refuges. The survey was conducted to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. The survey results will inform Service performance planning, budget, and communications goals. Results will also inform Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCPs), Visitor Services, and Transportation Planning processes. The survey was conducted on 53 refuges across the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) to better understand visitor needs and experiences and to design programs and facilities that respond to those needs. A total of 14,832 visitors agreed to participate in the survey between July 2010 and November 2011. In all, 10,233 visitors completed the survey for a 71% response rate. This report provides a summary of visitor and trip characteristics; visitor opinions about refuges and their offerings; and visitor opinions about alternative transportation and climate change, two Refuge System topics of interest. The Refuge System, established in 1903 and managed by the Service, is the leading network of protected lands and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. There are 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 wetland management districts nationwide, encompassing more than 150 million acres. The Refuge System attracts more than 45 million visitors annually, including 25 million people per year to observe and photograph wildlife, over 9 million to hunt and fish, and more than 10 million to participate in educational and interpretation programs. Understanding visitors and characterizing their experiences on national wildlife refuges are critical elements of managing these lands and meeting the goals of the Refuge System. These combined results are based on surveying at 53 participating refuges during 2010/2011 and contain the following information: * Synopsis: Brief summary of the survey results. * Introduction: An overview of the Refuge System and the goals of the national surveying effort. * Methods: The procedures for the national surveying effort, including selecting refuges, developing the survey instrument, contacting visitors, and guidance for interpreting the results. * Survey Results: Key findings from the survey, including: - Visitor and trip characteristics - Visitors opinions about refuges - Visitor opinions about alternative transportation - Visitor opinions about climate change * Conclusion * References Individual results for each of the 53 participating refuges are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ as part of USGS Data Series 643.
Assessing environmental contaminant threats to lands and biota managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) is a standardized approach for documenting and assessing threats posed by environmental contaminants to lands and biota managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD) developed the CAP cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Division of Environmental Contaminants (DEC). The CAP involves two parts, a retrospective analysis, and if needed, field-sampling. The retrospective analysis documents the ecological characteristics, management goals, areas potentially vulnerable to hazardous substance spills, and habitats of importance for the DOI land unit of interest. In addition, contaminant transport pathways and sources (point and nonpoint) are identified and potentially contaminated areas delineated. The second part of the CAP involves developing field-sampling plans to confirm the presence or effects of contaminants identified in the retrospective analysis. Field-sampling deemed necessary to confirm contaminant issues on national wildlife refuges identified through the retrospective analyses of CAP is handled as part of DECs on- and off-refuge investigation programs. By gathering and interpreting information, the CAP generates valuable insight regarding contaminant issues that may be affecting refuges. Findings from the CAP can help FWS stewards select options that reduce contaminant impacts on the habitats and species that they manage. Information synthesized through the CAP also contributes to the development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans mandated through the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. To insure that this information has the maximum benefit to the agency, DEC and the BEST Program jointly developed a data management system to support the CAP. This system facilitates information acquisition from remote sources and serves as a permanent data repository. Thus, the system documents CAP findings, enhances FWS's institutional memory, and supports informed management decisions. This document is a user's guide, intended for use by FWS field biologists responsible for applying the retrospective analysis portion of the CAP to FWS national wildlife refuge lands and provides instructions for entering information into the data management system. This is the third revision of the original document written in 1993 by scientists of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
A human-dimensions review of human-wildlife disturbance: A literature review of impacts, frameworks, and management solutions
The following report was prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Refuge System in support of their Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) efforts by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA), Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. While this document provides a summary of contemporary recreation management literature and methodologies, relevant to the subject of managing wildlife disturbances on national wildlife refuges, this document should be viewed as a starting point for management administrators. This document identifies general issues relating to wildlife disturbance and visitor impacts including a description of disturbance, recreational impacts, related human dimensions applications, management frameworks, and a general summary of management solutions. The section on descriptions of wildlife disturbance and impacts draws heavily from the report entitled 'Managing the Impacts of Visitor Use on Waterbirds -- A Literature Review of Impacts and Mitigation' (DeLong, 2002; Delong and Adamcik, in press) and is referenced in the text. This document is more comprehensive in its review of wildlife response to disturbance. This document is intended to discuss the human-dimensions aspect of wildlife disturbance, summarizing human dimensions and recreation management literature as it applies to this topic.
Multidirectional abundance shifts among North American birds and the relative influence of multifaceted climate factors
Shifts in species distributions are major fingerprint of climate change. Examining changes in species abundance structures at a continental scale enables robust evaluation of climate change influences, but few studies have conducted these evaluations due to limited data and methodological constraints. In this study, we estimate temporal changes in abundance from North American Breeding Bird Survey data at the scale of physiographic strata to examine the relative influence of different components of climatic factors and evaluate the hypothesis that shifting species distributions are multidirectional in resident bird species in North America. We quantify the direction and velocity of the abundance shifts of 57 permanent resident birds over 44 years using a centroid analysis. For species with significant abundance shifts in the centroid analysis, we conduct a more intensive correlative analysis to identify climate components most strongly associated with composite change of abundance within strata. Our analysis focus on two contrasts: the relative importance of climate extremes vs. averages, and of temperature vs. precipitation in strength of association with abundance change. Our study shows that 36 species had significant abundance shifts over the study period. The average velocity of the centroid is 5.89 km·yr −1 . The shifted distance on average covers 259 km, 9% of range extent. Our results strongly suggest that the climate change fingerprint in studied avian distributions is multidirectional. Among 6 directions with significant abundance shifts, the northwestward shift was observed in the largest number of species ( n = 13). The temperature/average climate model consistently has greater predictive ability than the precipitation/extreme climate model in explaining strata‐level abundance change. Our study shows heterogeneous avian responses to recent environmental changes. It highlights needs for more species‐specific approaches to examine contributing factors to recent distributional changes and for comprehensive conservation planning for climate change adaptation.
Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge land cover mapping project users guide
Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA, 1980) established the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (TNWR). Section 304 of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "prepare, and from time to time revise, a comprehensive conservation plan" for the refuge. Before developing a plan for the refuge, the Secretary shall identify and describe--a) the populations and habitats of the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge; b) the special values of the refuge as well as any other archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, palentological, scenic, or wilderness value of the refuge; c) areas within the refuge that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities… ; d) present the potential requirements for access with respect to the refuge… ; and e) significant problems which may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish and wildlife identified and described... (ANILCA, 1980). Vegetation, water, and terrain (elevation, slope, and aspect) are the components of habitat and can be used in the determination of the above requirements. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the responsibility for collecting the resource information to address the research, management, development and planning requirements identified in Section 304. Because of the brief period provided by the Act for data collection, habitat mapping, and habitat assessment, the USFWS in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Field Office, used digital Landsat multispectral scanner data (MSS) and digital terrain data to produce land cover and terrain maps. A computer assisted digital analysis of Landsat MSS data was used because coverage by aerial photographs was incomplete for much of the refuge and because the level of detail, obtained from the analysis of Landsat data, is adequate to meet most USFWS research, management and planning needs. Relative cost and time requirements were also factors in the decision to use the digital analysis approach.
Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge land cover mapping project user's guide
Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA 1980) established the Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge (NNWR). Section 304 of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "prepare, and from time to time revise, a comprehensive conservation plan" for the refuge.
Selawik National Wildlife Refuge land cover mapping project users guide
Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, 1980) established the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR). Section 304 of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "prepare, and from time to time revise, a comprehensive conservation plan" for the refuge. Before developing a plan for the refuge, the Secretary shall "identify and describe--a) the populations and habitats of the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge; b) the special values of the refuge as well as any other archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, palentological, scenic, or wilderness value of the refuge; c) areas within the refuge that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities...; d) present the potential requirements for access with respect to the refuge...; and e) significant problems which may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish and wildlife identified and described..." (ANILCA, 1980). Vegetation, water, and terrain (elevation, slope, and aspect) are the components of habitat and can be used in the determination of the above requirements. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the responsibility for collecting the resource information to address the research, management, development and planning requirements identified in Section 304. Because of the brief period provided by the Act for data collection, habitat mapping, and habitat assessment, the USFWS in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Field Office, used digital Landsat multispectral scanner (MSS) data and digital terrain data to produce land cover and terrain maps. A computer assisted digital analysis of Landsat MSS data was used because coverage by aerial photographs was incomplete for the refuge and because the level of detail obtained from Landsat data was adequate to meet most USFWS research, management and planning needs. Relative cost and time requirements were also factors in the decision to use the digital analysis approach.