Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Planning”

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.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2020

2023 Coastal master plan: Model improvement plan, ICM-wetlands, vegetation, and soil

As part of the model improvement effort for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan, the wetland processes captured by the morphology and vegetation models used during previous master plans were reevaluated to assess how Integrated Compartment Model (ICM) subroutines could be improved. This process considered technical reviews, comments, and suggested improvements provided by model developers, advisory groups, and other experts during previous master plan cycles. The availability of new data and information that could be used to make model improvements was also considered. In many cases, the team considered and tested multiple options or approaches. As a result of this effort, recommended improvements are provided here. The improvements recommended to be included in the 2023 Coastal Master Plan include: adjusting marsh collapse thresholds, refining organic matter accretion calculations, developing an unstructured grid for modeling vegetation, improving flotant marsh and forested wetlands algorithms, creating and applying an updated map of existing vegetation, adjusting model code, and updating the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) module. This report describes the team’s work through a series of 7 distinct activities to identify and test options for model improvements to ensure the updated ICM used for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan appropriately captures ecological and morphological processes observed in Coastal Louisiana. As appropriate, relevant literature and data are discussed. Test runs to evaluate how changes influence model outputs are also documented. A final list of recommended updates, taking into account consideration of all options and results from test runs, is summarized at the end of the report. A later report will describe the final ICM-LAVegMod and ICM-Morph subroutines for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan, detailing the updates that have been incorporated.

Louisiana↗
USGS2014

Conservation Action Planning: Lessons learned from the St. Marys River watershed biodiversity conservation planning process

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) is an adaptive management planning process refined by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and embraced worldwide as the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. The CAP process facilitates open, multi-institutional collaboration on a common conservation agenda through organized actions and quantified results. While specifically designed for conservation efforts, the framework is adaptable and flexible to multiple scales and can be used for any collaborative planning effort. The CAP framework addresses inception; design and development of goals, measures, and strategies; and plan implementation and evaluation. The specific components of the CAP include defining the project scope and conservation targets; assessing the ecological viability; ascertaining threats and surrounding situation; identifying opportunities and designing strategies for action; and implementing actions and monitoring results. In 2007, TNC and a multidisciplinary graduate student team from the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment initiated a CAP for the St. Marys River, the connecting channel between Lake Superior and Lake Huron, and its local watershed. The students not only gained experience in conservation planning, but also learned lessons that notably benefited the CAP process and were valuable for any successful collaborative effort—a dedicated core team improved product quality, accelerated the timeline, and provided necessary support for ongoing efforts; an academic approach in preparation for engagement in the planning process brought applicable scientific research to the forefront, enhanced workshop facilitation, and improved stakeholder participation; and early and continuous interactions with regional stakeholders improved cooperation and built a supportive network for collaboration.

Michigan, Ontario↗
USGS2011

A multi-species framework for landscape conservation planning

 Rapidly changing landscapes have spurred the need for quantitative methods for conservation assessment and planning that encompass large spatial extents. We devised and tested a multispecies framework for conservation planning to complement single-species assessments and ecosystem-level approaches. Our framework consisted of 4 elements: sampling to effectively estimate population parameters, measuring how human activity affects landscapes at multiple scales, analyzing the relation between landscape characteristics and individual species occurrences, and evaluating and comparing the responses of multiple species to landscape modification. We applied the approach to a community of terrestrial birds across 25,000 km 2 with a range of intensities of human development. Human modification of land cover, road density, and other elements of the landscape, measured at multiple spatial extents, had large effects on occupancy of the 67 species studied. Forest composition within 1 km of points had a strong effect on occupancy of many species and a range of negative, intermediate, and positive associations. Road density within 1 km of points, percent evergreen forest within 300 m, and distance from patch edge were also strongly associated with occupancy for many species. We used the occupancy results to group species into 11 guilds that shared patterns of association with landscape characteristics. Our multispecies approach to conservation planning allowed us to quantify the trade-offs of different scenarios of land-cover change in terms of species occupancy.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2022

Integrating climate-informed planning into State Wildlife Action Plans in the north central United States

State fish and wildlife agencies are required to submit a State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) every 10 years to be eligible for grants through the State Wildlife Grant Program. With the next round of revisions due in 2025, the U.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center is evaluating how to best support states with further integrating climate-informed planning in their SWAPs. Here, we summarize how states in the North Central region, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, addressed adaptation planning in their 2015 SWAPs. We review climate adaptation considerations in required SWAP elements one through five, including species, habitats, threats, conservation actions, and conservation monitoring, respectively. We also include a list of potential strategies that the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center could use to support states in the North Central region with further advancing the integration of climate informed planning in ongoing and future SWAP revisions. These strategies were primarily identified during meetings in 2021 with six of seven state fish and wildlife agencies in the North Central region where we discussed their priority needs relating to climate-informed planning. Our hope is that these strategies will enhance existing efforts in the region to advance the integration of climate change in conservation planning.

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,↗
USGS2018

Compilation and assessment of resource values and hazards to inform transportation planning and associated land-use planning

Land-use planning has an important role in local, regional, State, and Federal land management, and planning efforts can benefit from consistent, spatially explicit information that can help guide priorities and decisions. The credibility and relevance of information used to inform planning activities depends on the availability of consistent information about the resources and values of interest or concern within the planning area. To support long-range transportation planning and other regional land-use planning efforts, the U.S. Geological Survey gathered, processed, interpreted, and compiled spatial datasets representing a wide range of information on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem condition and importance, cultural (historical) features and places, and natural hazards. This report describes the spatial data compiled to represent natural landscape conditions (including social, cultural, and natural attributes) to estimate the potential importance of lands for wildlife, wild habitats, recreation, and conservation based on abundance of species, habitats, land and water conditions, and conservation designations. Abundance of resources, including the potential number of species, presence of important habitats and protected areas, and proximity to particular features or habitats, indicates the potential sensitivity of the natural landscape to land use, especially transportation networks. The source data, derived indices, and the methods for processing these data are described in this final report. The datasets referenced in the report are available from the U.S. Geological Survey ( https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/ and https://doi.org/10.5066/F7MW2F8W ) or the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Office of Federal Lands Highway ( https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov ).

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2022

Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Adaptation in State Wildlife Action Plans and Other Management Plans

The Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Adaptation into State Wildlife Actions Plans and other Management Plans aims to help state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate climate change adaptation for fish and wildlife and their habitats into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) and other natural resource management plans. This update to the original 2009 Voluntary Guidance reflects the advancements in climate science and in our understanding and implementation of climate adaptation developed over the past 13 years. The document provides principles and tools that can be used to plan for and implement climate change adaptation, voluntary guidance for incorporating climate change into the existing required elements of SWAPs, and case studies to demonstrate adaptation strategies deployed by states in their management efforts. Climate change continues to be a significant issue for wildlife and natural systems and for the people who rely on the ecosystem services they provide. There is now a well-established and growing scientific literature on the impacts of climate change on wildlife and their habitats, including climate-driven range shifts, population changes, and even species extinctions. At the same time, efforts to address climate change impacts can be made in cooperation with efforts to address other threats, including habitat loss/fragmentation from development, introduction of invasive species, water pollution, and wildlife diseases, many of which may be exacerbated by climate change. Since climate change is a complex and often politically charged issue, it is understood that the decision to revise SWAPs, or other plans, to address climate change rests solely with each state fish and wildlife agency. All states are required to update their SWAPs by 2025 to qualify for federal funding. Although consideration of climate change is not a requirement for this revision of SWAPs, assessing the impacts of climate change and identifying species and habitats vulnerable to those impacts can help states meet the required eight elements for the revision and prepare for funding opportunities that can support climate adaptation efforts. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, if passed by the Senate, would provide billions of dollars to states to implement SWAPs, including addressing climate change impacts on fish and wildlife. The Voluntary Guidance Document introduces and explains seven overarching principles for incorporating climate adaptation into SWAPs. These principles (found in Chapter 2) are: 1. Fully integrate climate change into SWAPs 2. Adopt forward-looking goals 3. Explicitly link actions to climate vulnerabilities 4. Manage for change, not just persistence 5. Consider broader landscapes and longer timeframes 6. Address uncertainty by considering future scenarios and use of adaptive management 7. Engage diverse partners with climate experience and expertise

Report↗
USGS2017

Scientific monitoring plan in support of the selected alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), its bureaus, and to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) in support of implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). The selected alternative identified in the LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) describes various data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation efforts to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), partner agencies, and cooperators that will inform decisions about operations of Glen Canyon Dam and management of downstream resources between 2017 and 2037, the performance period of the LTEMP. General data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation activities are described in this science plan, whereas specific monitoring and research activities and detailed study plans are to be described in the GCDAMP’s triennial work plans (TWPs) to be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC with input from partner agencies and cooperators during the LTEMP period, which are to be reviewed and recommended by the GCDAMP and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The GCDAMP consists of several components, the primary committee being the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This Federal advisory committee is composed of 25 agencies and stakeholder groups and is chaired by the Secretary of the Interior’s designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other experimental management actions that are intended to fulfill some obligations of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice to the AMWG. It is composed of technical and science representatives from the same agencies and stakeholder groups who serve on the AMWG. GCMRC is the primary science provider to the GCDAMP and also coordinates many aspects of the science performed by cooperators and partner agencies. The Science Advisors Program provides independent science reviews and advice at the request of the GCDAMP. The plan proposed here necessarily depends on (1) the protocol for decision-making and the requirements for scientific data reporting described in the LTEMP ROD, (2) the priorities of the GCDAMP as directed by the LTEMP ROD (see Department of the Interior, 2016b, section 6.1), (3) the priorities for monitoring and research in the conservation measures section of the Biological Opinion for the LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b, LTEMP ROD attachment E), (4) the priorities for resource management and information needs established by Federal and State resource-management agencies within the GCDAMP, (5) scientific understanding about the linkage between the status of those resources and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and (6) the need to resolve existing scientific uncertainties about the linkage between dam operations and the condition of resources. We note that resource-management prioritization is fundamentally a policy decision charged specifically to DOI for the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons, as outlined most recently in the LTEMP ROD, and is not the responsibility of the GCMRC. However, it is the responsibility of the GCMRC to describe the nature of scientific understanding, the nature of scientific uncertainty, and the risk of making resourcemanagement decisions in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. The goals of science activities in the next 20 years are to inform operational decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations described in the LTEMP ROD, resolve remaining scientific uncertainties, and to monitor resource trends that are affected entirely, or in part, by dam operations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Assessing the value and usage of data management planning and data management plans within the U.S. Geological Survey

As of 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fundamental Science Practices require data management plans (DMPs) for all USGS and USGS-funded research. The USGS Science Data Management Branch of the Science Analytics and Synthesis Program has been working to help the USGS (Bureau) meet this requirement. However, USGS researchers still encounter common data management-related challenges that may be reduced or eliminated by better planning. In 2021, USGS staff were given a series of surveys aimed to better understand current data management planning practices, perceptions, and needs. The survey results indicated that adoption and integration of data management planning and DMPs into USGS research project workflows are broad, if inconsistent, across USGS Science Centers and programs. The USGS Science Data Management Branch can help improve clarity and guidance on the purpose, intended audience, content, workflows, and evaluation processes for DMPs. It would also be beneficial to provide additional supporting cyberinfrastructure to support DMP activities. Survey responses indicated it would be beneficial for the Science Data Management Branch to develop a strategy, other than through DMPs, for teaching and encouraging good data management practices. Although these surveys were an opportunity for USGS staff to provide feedback on their experiences, the surveys may also have revealed the desire for more frequent evaluations, cross-disciplinary communication, and training on research data management and DMP development and integration, in the context of USGS policy, Fundamental Science Practices requirements, and overall Bureau expectations. Data management-related roles such as data manager or steward, information technologist, and repository manager may need to be formally recognized as skilled professional career positions within the Bureau. At a minimum, the best practice for USGS would be to create and maintain DMPs as living documents, integrated with existing systems that are broadly accessible to all stakeholders, and include quantitatively measurable benefits tied directly to a clearly defined purpose.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Scenario Planning Around Resource Challenges (SPARC): A management-centered approach to scenario planning for climate adaptation

Scenario planning is a strategy or framework that aids making decisions under uncertainty. Inspired by widespread use in the areas of military and business, recent work has applied the strategy to anticipate the effects of climate change on natural resource management. Most scenario planning efforts identify scenarios based on uncertain response in two key drivers of change (e.g., climate, ecology, land use) and then consider the resultant effects on the system and possible changes to management protocols. We present an alternative implementation of scenario planning — Scenario Planning Around Resource Challenges (SPARC) — that produces scenarios that are driven directly by management concerns rather than by the leading scientific uncertainties. The three-step process entails (1) compiling information from the manager (resources, goals, priorities), (2) building scenarios from the leading possible outcomes suggested by the scientific literature and manager perspectives, and (3) running each scenario (i.e., outcome) one-by-one to consider adjustments to management protocols. In short, the unknowns become the scenarios that reflect management priorities. Rather than focusing on the dominant scientific uncertainties, managers spend their time considering only the uncertainties that directly affect the decisions they make. Here, we examine this approach using a case study from a landscape conservation design process led by the Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative in the Madrean Ecoregion of southeastern Arizona, U.S.A.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2007

Evolving plans for the USA National Phenology Network

Phenology is the study of periodic plant and animal life cycle events, how these are influenced by seasonal and interannual variations in climate, and how they modulate the abundance, diversity, and interactions of organisms. The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) is currently being organized to engage federal agencies, environmental networks and field stations, educational institutions, and citizen scientists. The first USA-NPN planning workshop was held August 2005, in Tucson, Ariz. (Betancourt et al. [2005]; http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Geography/npn/; by 1 June 2007, also see http://www.usanpn.org). With sponsorship from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NASA, the second USA-NPN planning workshop was held at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on 10–12 October 2006 to (1) develop lists of target species and observation protocols; (2) identify existing networks that could comprise the backbone of nationwide observations by 2008; (3) develop opportunities for education, citizen science, and outreach beginning in spring 2007; (4) design strategies for implementing the remote sensing component of USA-NPN; and (5) draft a data management and cyberinfrastructure plan.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗
USGS2018

Golden Eagle Monitoring Plan for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan

This report describes options for monitoring the status and population trends of the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) within the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) area of Southern California in maintaining stable or increasing population in the planning area. The report profiles the ecology of golden eagles in the region and provides a range of potential sampling options to address monitoring needs and objectives. This approach also focused on links between changes in human land-use, golden eagle nesting and foraging habitat conditions, and population dynamics. The report outlines how monitoring data from demographic, prey, and habitat studies were used to develop a predictive demographic model for golden eagles in the DRECP area. Results from the model simulations suggest increases in renewable energy development could have negative consequences for population trajectories. Results also suggest site-specific conservation actions could reduce the magnitude of negative impacts to the local population of eagles. A monitoring framework is proposed including: (1) annual assessments of site-occupancy and reproduction by territorial pairs of golden eagles (including rates at which sites become colonized or vacated over time); (2) estimates of survival, movements, and intensity of use of landscapes by breeding and non-breeding golden eagles; (3) periodic (conducted every two to four years) assessments of nesting and foraging habitats, prey populations, and associations with land-use and management activities; and (4) updating the predictive demographic model with new information obtained on eagles and associated population stressors. The results of this research were published in the Journal of Rapture Research, Wiens, David,Inman, Rich D., Esque, Todd C., Longshore, Kathleen M. and Nussear, Kenneth (2017). Spatial Demographic Models to Inform Conservation Planning of Golden Eagles in Renewable Energy Landscapes. 51(3):234-257.

Report↗
USGS2024

Climate science and adaptation planning support for State Wildlife Action Plans in the North Central region

Final report for an NC CASC project to identify needs and provide support for states in the North Central region and Idaho to integrate climate science and adaptation into their State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). Our objectives were to: 1) engage with state wildlife agencies in the North Central region to identify their needs for climate-informed planning support and 2) collaboratively develop products that will help them better integrate climate adaptation strategies into SWAPs.

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, ↗
USGS2006

Plans of the U.S.Geological Survey, water resources division for research, investigations, and data collection in ground water

The Geological Survey has been the foremost agency in the investigation of ground ‐ water resources in the United States beginning about 1910. Most of the basic principles of modern ground ‐ water hydrology were developed in the Survey ' s program of cooperative investigations . Use of ground water in the United States in 1960 was about 17½ percent of all water uses, excluding water power. The use will probably increase, though at a decreasing rate. Although amount of use may level off, the need to know about it will not. While coordinating its activities with those of the Office of Water Data Coordination and the Office of Water Resources Research , the Survey expects to step up its work in all three areas of data collection , investigations , and research . However, there will be changes of emphasis. Collection of raw data will tend to stress key observation points, and more and more observation of temperature and quality, including contaminants. Investigations will be aimed at upgrading reconnaissance coverage to general coverage for most of the Nation. The areal basis will be stream drainage basins and special hydrologic terranes, rather than political units. There will be an increase in the preparation of analog models for representative ground ‐ water systems. In research , the problem‐oriented basis will continue. Stress will be on basic principles that pertain to artificial recharge, and the natural recharge and discharge of ground ‐ water reservoirs; and also on the application of geologic principles on a regional scale. These are critical elements in the management of surface‐ water and ground ‐ water resources conjunctively in river basins.

Groundwater↗
USGS1975

Use of USGS earth science products by city planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, plan implementation devices, and other planning-related activities was completed for the ninety-one cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 85 earth science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). This inventory showed that: (1) three-fourths of the cities had planning staffs who were familiar with SFBRS products, or had made use of such products; (2) over half of the cities had prepared planning documents which contained references to SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies; seismic safety, public safety, conservation, and open-space plan elements; general reference; and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) almost 90 percent of all 85 SFBRS products were used at least once for a city planning activity, and one product was used at least 67 times for various city planning activities; and (5) at least forty-five other other USGS products were also used for various city planning activities. All of the seven SFBRS products that were used 30 or more times for city planning activities were small-scale, large-areal-coverage, hazard-type products. Each product is interpretative and contains additional data which makes it more relevant or more interesting. The planning staffs of each city were also interviewed and asked to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to recommend improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth science data. The responses showed that: (1) the map scales commonly used by cities were much larger than 1:12,000; (2) few cities had planning staffs with training or experience in the earth sciences or engineering; (3) less than one-fourth of the cities failed to use SFBRS products-primarily because their staffs were unaware of the SFBRS, unfamiliar with its products, or lacked adequate capability; (4) almost two-thirds of the cities expressed some problems in using the products-primarily scale and detail; (5) over two-thirds of the cities expressed an interest in continuing to use, or planning to use, the SFBRS products in the future, and a need or desire for additional earth science, engineering or other data; and (6) over one-half of the cities suggested improvements-primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretative products. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the cities in the Bay region have considerable familiarity with, and have made substantial use of, SFBRS products. This use was made by many cities despite their small size, limited staff capability, and the design of the products which was intended primarily for regional planning at a regional scale. Suggestions are made to ensure more familiarity with, and more effective use of, earth science data in the future. These suggestions include: (1) providing engineering interpretations and land-use capability ratings to make earth science data more readily usable; (2) monitoring and analyzing new state laws and regulations to better anticipate and respond to local earth science data needs; (3) including technical assistance with any earth science data designed for planners and decision-makers; (4) providing larger scale and greater detail earth science data on a demonstration basis; (5) giving priority to urban and urbanizing areas so as to conserve limited staff resources; and (6) ensuring product distribution to all potential users.

California↗