USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Richard A. Ellison

Publications and source records attributed to Richard A. Ellison.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1985

Effects of flood control alternatives on fish and wildlife resources of the Malheur-Harney lakes basin

Malheur Lake is the largest freshwater marsh in the western contiguous United States and is one of the main management units of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. The marsh provides excellent waterfowl production habitat as well as vital migration habitats for birds in the Pacific flyway. Water shortages have typically been a problem in this semiarid area; however, record snowfalls and cool summers have recently caused Malheur Lake to rise to its highest level in recorded history. This has resulted in the loss of approximately 57,000 acres of important wildlife habitat as well as extensive flooding of local ranches, roads, and railroad lines. Because of the importance of the Refuge, any water management plan for the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin needs to consider the impact of management alternatives on the hydrology of Malheur Lake. The facilitated modeling workshop described in this report was conducted January 14-18, 1985, under the joint sponsorship of the Portland Ecological Services Field Office and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Portland Field Office is responsible for FWS reporting requirements on Federal water resource projects while the Refuge staff has management responsibility for much of the land affected by high water levels in the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin. The primary objective of the workshop was to begin gathering and analyzing information concerning potential fish and wildlife impacts, needs, and opportunities associated with proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) flood control alternatives for Malheur Lake. The workshop was structured around the formulation of a computer model that would simulate the hydrologic effects of the various alternatives and any concommitant changes in vegetation communities and wildlife use patterns. The simulation model is composed of three connected submodels. The Hydrology submodel calculates changes in lake volume, elevation, and surface area, as well as changes in water quality, that result from the proposed water management projects (upstream storage, upstream diversions, drainage canals) and the no action alternative. The Vegetation submodel determines associated changes in the areal extent of wetland and upland vegetation communities. Finally, the Wildlife submodel calculates indices of abundance or habitat suitability for colonial nesting birds (great egret, double-crested cormorant, white-faced ibis), greater sandhill crane, diving ducks, tundra swan, dabbling ducks, and Canada goose based on hydrologic and vegetation conditions. The model represents the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin, but provides water quantity and quality indicators associated with additional flows that might occur in the Malheur River Basin. Several management scenarios, representing various flood control alternatives and assumptions concerning future runoff, were run to analyze model behavior. Scenario results are not intended as an analysis of all potential management actions or assumptions concerning future runoff. Rather, they demonstrate the type of analysis that could be conducted if the model was sufficiently refined and tested. Early in a model development project, the process of building the model is usually of greater benefit than the model itself. The model building process stimulates interaction among agencies, assists in integrating existing information, and helps identify research needs. These benefits usually accrue even in the absence of real predictive power in the resulting model. This workshop initiated interaction among the primary State and Federal resource and development agencies in a nonadversarial forum. The exchange of information and expertise among agencies provided the FWS with the best information currently available for use in the Planning Aid Letter it will develop at the Reconnaissance state of the COE study. If the COE subsequently initiates a Feasability Study, this information will be refined further and will aid the FWS in preparing its Coordination Act Report on any flood control alternative proposed by the COE. The model building and testing process also helped identify model limitations and more general information needs that should be evaluated for further study prior to preparation of an FWS Coordination Act Report. Major needs associated with the Hydrology submodel include a more detailed representation of hydrologic units (separately consider Harney Lake, Mud Lake, and Malheur Lake or the three hydrological units within Malheur Lake, rather than a combined lake system) and explicitly representation of groundwater storage and discharge in water budget calculations. A better representation of the hydrological units will require more detailed topographic data for the basin, capacity-elevation and elevation-surface area curves for each unit, and better water flow data between the units. Additional water quality parameters and constraints on proposed canal operation due to conditions in the Malheur River might also be added. Key Vegetation submodel needs include fine-tuning existing vegetation relationships in the model and adding relationships to address the influence of historical conditions on vegetation development, effects of very rapid changes in lake level, effects of wildlife populations (e.g., carp, muskrat), responses of vegetation to habitat management actions (e.g, haying, grazing, burning), and better representation of sago pondweed dynamics. A complementary geographic information system might also be developed for spatial analyses. Major needs that should be evaluated for the Wildlife submodel include addition of other wildlife species that have important effects on habitat on the Refuge (e.g., carp, muskrat) and consideration of additional life-cycle requisites and controlling variable for species presently in the model. Some of these limitations could perhaps be overcome if historical data on habitat conditions were developed to use with historical data on wildlife populations.

Oregon↗
USGS1985

Environmental systems and management activities on the Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida: results of a modeling workshop

In the early 1960's, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began purchasing 140,000 acres on Merritt Island, Florida, in order to develop a center for space exploration. Most of this land was acquired to provide a safety and security buffer around NASA facilities. NASA, as the managing agency for the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), is responsible for preventing or controlling environmental pollution from the Federal facilities and activities at the Space Center and is committed to use all practicable means to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment. The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1963 when management authority for undeveloped lands at KSC was transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to manage for 11 Federally-listed threatened and endangered species and other resident and migratory fish and wildlife populations, the Refuge has comanagement responsibility for 19,000 acres of mosquito control impoundments and 2,500 acres of citrus groves. The Canaveral National Seashore was developed in 1975 when management of a portion of the coastal lands was transferred from NASA to the National Park Service. This multiagency jurisdiction on Merritt Island has resulted in a complex management environment. The modeling workshop described in this report was conducted May 21-25, 1984, at the Kennedy Space Center to: (1) enhance communication among the agencies with management responsibilities on Merritt Island; (2) integrate available information concerning the development, management, and ecology of Merritt Island; and (3) identify key research and monitoring needs associated with the management and use of the island's resources. The workshop was structured around the formulation of a model that would simulate primary management and use activities on Merritt Island and their effects on upland, impoundment, and estuarine vegetation and associated wildlife. The simulation model is composed of four connected submodels. The Uplands submodel calculates changes in acres and structural components of vegetation communities resulting from succession, fire, facilities development, and shuttle launch depositions, as well as the quantity and quality of surface runoff and aquifer input to an impoundment and an estuary. The Impoundment submodel next determines water quality and quantity and changes in vegetation resulting from water level manipulation and prescribed burning. The Estuary submodel than determines water quality parameters and acres of seagrass beds. Finally, the Wildlife submodel calculates habitat suitability indices for key species of interest, based on vegetation conditions in the uplands and impoundments and on several hydrologic parameters. The model represents a hypothetical management unit with 2,500 acres of uplands, a 600-acre impoundment, and a 1,500-acre section of estuary. Two management scenarios were run to analyze model behavior. The scenarios differ in the frequency of shuttle launches and prescribed burning, the extent of facilities development, the amount of land disposed waste material applied, and the nature and timing of impoundment water level control. Early in a model development project, the process of building the model is usually of greater benefit than the model itself. The model building process stimulates interaction among agencies, assists in integrating existing information, and helps identify research needs. These benefits usually accrue even in the absence of real predictive power in the resulting model. Open communication occurs among the Federal, State, and local agencies involved with activities on Merritt Island and the agencies have a cooperative working relationship. The workshop provided an opportunity for all of these agencies to meet at one time and have focused discussions on the key environmental and multiagency resource management issues. The workshop framework helped to integrate information and assumptions from a number of disciplines and agencies. This integration occurred in the computer simulation model and among workshop participants as submodel linkages were developed and scenario results discussed. A number of research needs were identified at the workshop during the model building and testing exercises and associated discussions. These needs were based on the informed judgement of researchers and managers familiar with Merritt Island or similar areas, rather than on a comprehensive literature review of sensitivity analysis of the preliminary model developed at the workshop. Some of the needs can be addressed by interpreting the results of completed studies from similar geographic areas as they relate to Merritt Island, while other will require additional research studies on Merritt Island. Major research needs associated with the Upland submodel include behavior of the near-surface aquifer, factors limiting slash pine regeneration, frequency and effects of natural fire on various cover types, cumulative effects of shuttle launches, and fate in upland soils of nitrogen and phosphorous from land applied waste material. Key Impoundment submodel needs include documentation of vegetation changes in response to altered water depth, salinity, and nutrient concentrations and better specification of the functional characteristics of impoundments as chemical filters. Important information gaps identified in the Estuary submodel include a more complete analysis of factors contributing to phytoplankton abundance, evaluation of sources of turbidity other than phytoplankton, and identification and quantification of factors limiting seagrass distribution. Primary research needs associated with the Wildlife submodel include a survey of breeding habitat, production data, and harvest data for mottled ducks; data on the emigration and immigration of juvenile mullet (and other transient fish) in the impoundment; the contribution of various seagrasses to habitat requirements of sea trout; and the effects of dissolved oxygen on survival of juvenile sea trout. Ideally, the modeling workshop process is iterative in nature. Periods between workshops are used for research, data collection, and model refinement. Each workshop integrates information collected since the last workshop and produces a more credible model that is more useful in evaluating management alternatives. Participants felt that continued application of this process would help provide ongoing integration and communication among agencies and would allow each agency's planning and management activities to be viewed within the context of an overall assessment.

Report↗
USGS1983

Evaluating environmental and economic consequences of alternative pest management strategies: results of modeling workshops

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs a comprehensive method to evaluate the human health and environmental effects of alternative agricultural pest management strategies. This project explored the utility of Adaptive Environmental Assessment (AEA) techniques for meeting this need. The project objectives were to produce models for environmental impact analysis, improve communications, identify research needs and data requirements, and demonstrate a process for resolving conflicts. The project was structured around the construction (in an initial 2 1/2-day workshop) and examination (in a second 2 1/2-day workshop) of a simulation model of a corn agroecosystem. The model conceptualized at the first workshop simulates the effect of corn agrecosystem decisions on crop production, economic returns, and environmental indicators. The model is composed of five interacting submodels: 1) a Production Strategies submodel which makes decisions concerning tillage, planting, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and harvest; 2) a Hydrology/Chemical Transport submodel which represents soil hydrology, erosion, and concentrations of fertilizers and pesticides in the soil, runoff, surface waters, and percolation; 3) a Vegetation submodel which simulates growth of agricultural crops (corns and soybeans) and weeds; 4) a Pests submodel which calculates pest population levels and resulting crop damage; and 5) an Environmental Effects submodel which calculates indicators of potential fish kills, human health effects, and wildlife habitat. The most persistent data gaps encountered in quantifying the model were coefficients to relate environmental consequences to alternative pest management strategies. While the model developed in the project is not yet accurate enough to be used for real-world decisions about the use of pesticides on corn, it does contain the basic structure upon which such a model could be built. More importantly at this stage of development, the project has shown that very complex systems can be modeled in short periods of time and that the process of building such models increases understanding among disciplinary specialists and between diverse institutional interests. This process can be useful to EPA as the agency cooperates with other institutions to meet its responsibilities in less costly ways. Activities at the second 2 1/2-day workshop included a review of the model, incorporation of necessary corrections, simulation of policy scenarios, and examination of techniques to address remaining institutional conflicts. Participants were divided into three groups representing environmental, production or industry, and regulatory interests. Each group developed scenarios that would be most appealing to their particular interest and the scenarios were simulated by the agroecosystem computer model. Negotiators from each of the interest groups decided whether a hypothetical herbicide should be relabeled and if certain restrictions should be imposed on its use. Other participants functioned as experts and consultants on caucus teams. A solution to the hypothetical problem was successfully negotiated. Workshop participants and project staff agreed that the model and processes developed during the project should be used in training students, extension specialists, farmers, researchers, and chemical producers in collaborative problem solving methods. More productive research can be planned, and more realistic models of complex systems can be built in this way. More importantly, greater trust of decisionmakers in computer models, better understanding by technical experts about disciplines other than their own, and improved cooperation between institutional interests can be achieved. This trust, understanding, and cooperation are critical ingredients in solving problems that are too complex to be resolved by independent disciplinary activity and unilateral decision authority.

Report↗
USGS1983

Results of an adaptive environmental assessment modeling workshop concerning potential impacts of drilling muds and cuttings on the marine environment

Drilling fluids or "muds" are essential components of modern drilling operations. They provide integrity for the well bore, a medium for removal of formation cuttings, and lubrication and cooling of the drill bit and pipe. The modeling workshop described in this report was conducted September 14-18, 1981 in Gulf Breeze, Florida to consider potential impacts of discharged drilling muds and cuttings on the marine environment. The broad goals of the workshop were synthesis of information on fate and effects, identification of general relationships between drilling fluids and the marine environment, and identification of site-specific variables likely to determine impacts of drilling muds and cuttings in various marine sites. The workshop was structured around construction of a model simulating fate and effects of discharges from a single rig into open water areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and discussion of factors that might produce different fate and effects in enclosed areas such as bays and estuaries. The simulation model was composed of four connected submodels. A Discharge/Fate submodel dealt with the discharge characteristics of the rig and the subsequent fate of discharged material. Three effects submodels then calculated biological responses at distances away from the rig for the water column, soft bottom benthos (assuming the rig was located over a soft bottom environment), and hard bottom benthos (assuming the rig was located over a hard bottom environment). The model focused on direct linkages between the discharge and various organisms rather than on how the marine ecosystem itself is interconnected. Behavior of the simulation model indicated relatively localized effects of drilling muds and cuttings discharged from a single platform into open water areas. Water column fate and effects were dominated by rapid dilution. Effects from deposition of spent mud and cuttings were spatially limited with relatively rapid recovery, especially in soft bottom benthic communities which were conceptualized as being adapted to frequent storms. This behavior was generated by the set of assumptions about linkages and functional relationships used to construct the model. Areas of uncertainty included methods for extrapolating 96-hr LC50 so results to exposures of varying lengths and concentrations; recovery rates of benthic communities; responses to various depths and rates of burial; fate and effects of the plume in relationship to stratification layers; and long-term and sub-lethal effects of slightly elevated concentrations of discharged materials. Evaluation of the assumptions of the Soft Bottom Submodel suggest that the assumptions used may have been relatively liberal estimates of resiliency of these communities. Discussion of "closed" water bodies such as bays and estuaries indicated several reasons to expect different and more complex fate and effects behavior in these areas. These factors included different species and communities (such as aquatic macrophytes and oyster beds), more complex circulation and stratification patterns, and potentially more active resuspension processes. Much of the possible difference in behavior in these areas centers around the extent to which they are “closed” or in the relative residence times of water and sediments in these areas as they determine the long-term dispersion of discharged material. Despite the complexity and variability of these areas, a large body of knowledge (such as that concerning fate and physical effects of dredge spoil) that could be effectively employed in analysis of potential fate and physical effects in enclosed areas was identified.

Report↗
USGS1982

Results of a modeling workshop concerning economic and environmental trends and concomitant resource management issues in the Mobile Bay area

During the past decade, the southern regions of the U.S. have experienced rapid change which is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Growth in population, industry, and resource development has been attributed to a variety of advantages such as an abundant and inexpensive labor force, a mild climate, and the availability of energy, water, land, and other natural resources. While this growth has many benefits for the region, it also creates the potential for increased air, water, and solid waste pollution, and modification of natural habitats. A workshop was convened to consider the Mobile Bay area as a site-specific case of growth and its environmental consequences in the southern region. The objectives of the modeling workshop were to: (1) identify major factors of economic development as they relate to growth in the area over the immediate and longer term; (2) identify major environmental and resource management issues associated with this expected growth; and (3) identify and characterize the complex interrelationships among economic and environmental factors. This report summarizes the activities and results of a modeling workshop concerning economic growth and concomitant resource management issues in the Mobile Bay area. The workshop was organized around construction of a simulation model representing the relationships between a series of actions and indicators identified by participants. The workshop model had five major components. An Industry Submodel generated scenarios of growth in several industrial and transportation sectors. A Human Population/Economy Submodel calculated human population and economic variables in response to employment opportunities. A Land Use/Air Quality Submodel tabulated changes in land use, shoreline use, and air quality. A Water Submodel calculated indicators of water quality and quantity for fresh surface water, ground water, and Mobile Bay based on discharge information provided by the Industry and Human Population/Economy Submodels. Finally, a Fish Submodel calculated indicators of habitat quality for finfish and shellfish, utilizing information on water quality and wetlands acreage. The workshop was successful in identifying many of the critical interrelations between components of the Mobile area system. Not all of those interactions, such as the feedback of air quality as a limitation on development, could be incorporated into the workshop model because of the model's broad spatial scale and because of uncertainties or data gaps. Thus, the value of the modeling workshop was in the areas outlines below, rather than in the predictive power of the initial model developed at the workshop. First, participants developed a holistic perspective on the interactions which will determine future economic and environmental trends within the Mobile Bay area. Potential environmental consequences and limitations to grown identified at the workshop included: shoreline and water access; water quality of Mobile Bay; finfish and shellfish habitat quality with respect to dissolved oxygen and coliforms; air quality; and acreage of critical wetland habitat. Second, the model's requirements for specific, quantitative information stimulated supporting analyses, such as economic input-output calculations, which provide additional insight into the Mobile Bay area system. Third, the perspective of the Mobile area as an interacting system was developed in an open, cooperative forum which my provide a foundation for conflict resolution based on common understanding. Finally, the identification of model limitations and uncertainties should be useful in guiding the efficient allocation of future research effort.

Alabama↗
USGS1981

Results of a modeling workshop concerning preservation and protection of wetlands in North Dakota

In a recently signed letter, the Governor of North Dakota and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks charged a joint state-federal study group with examination of two separate questions: 1) mitigation for the Garrison Diversion Project; and 2) planning for long-range protection and preservation of fish and wildlife habitat in North Dakota. The cochair for this study group (the Secretary of the Interior's Field Representative, Denver, Colorado, and the Natural Resources Coordinator for North Dakota) further articulated the charge concerning the second of these two questions to include three steps: 1) development of a general plan for preservation and protection of migratory waterfowl and their associated wetland habitat; 2) a comprehensive analysis of alternative strategies, including opportunities and constraints, for achieving the goals articulated in Step 1; and 3) design of a coordinated state-federal public information program to assist in plan implementation. In order to obtain input from a variety of interests, the joint study group initiated step 2 activities with a five-day workshop in Bismarck, N. D.; December 8-12, 1980. The objectives of the workshop were: 1) to identify alternative strategies for preserving and enhancing waterfowl production habitat in North Dakota; 2) to identify opportunities and constraints associated with those alternatives; and 3) to promote communication and understanding of the implications of those alternatives for all affected parties. To achieve these objectives, the workshop utilized a group of concepts and techniques collectively known as Adaptive Environmental Assessment (AEA). Developed by Dr. C. S. Holling and his co-workers at the University of British Columbia, the AEA process involves planners, managers, scientists, and other interested parties in a structures atmosphere whose focus is the construction and examination of a computerized simulation model of the resource system under consideration. The modeling process is used to promote communication, identify pertinent issues, identify key data gaps and uncertainties, direct research efforts to fill those gaps, and explore the possible consequences of various management alternatives. The workshop, which was facilitated by the AEA Group of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), was attended by approximately 25 invited participants representing a variety of interests concerned with the wetlands protection issue in North Dakota. During the week workshop participants conceptualized and constructed a computerized simulation model incorporating many of the hydrologic, agricultural, and wildlife aspects of the wetlands issue. During the process of constructing this model and examining its behavior, participants identified several interesting alternative strategies that may prove useful in an overall wetland protection program, along with a variety of constraints associated with each. Perhaps the most interesting of these alternatives revolve around the idea that there may be a variety of cases in which water can be retained on the land, with concommitant benefits both for wildlife and flood control, without detriment to agricultural productivity. Examples of this kind of activity include flooding of previously drained Type I wetlands in summer fallow areas, installation of smaller drains in Type I and III wetlands to reduce the rate at which water runs off in the spring, and use of strategically located gates in drainage channels associated with the state highway system to slow runoff and create wetland habitat. Several other alternatives discussed at the workshop are related to the notion of using available, uncommitted water supplied to enhance or create wetlands. Several cases were cited in which more certain water supplies would be useful in increasing waterfowl production or reducing disease problems, especially in dry years. Water for such purposes might come from a variety of current of proposed water development projects, both large and small scale. Finally, the potential for re-establishment of "unsuccessfully" drained (i.e., not consistently usable for agricultural purposes) wetlands was discussed at some length. There are apparently substantial acreages of such wetlands in North Dakota and a program to acquire and rehabilitate them might be of considerable utility. The workshop was thus successful in accomplishing its first two objectives--identification of alternative strategies, opportunities, and constraints. However, it would be naive to suppose that any of the alternatives discussed offers a complete, simple solution to the wetlands issue in North Dakota. The most important result of the workshop may therefore be that which was accomplished relative to the third objective--promotion of communication and understanding. It was gratifying and encouraging to see the spirit of communication and cooperation that developed by the end of the workshop. The fact that representatives of many of the interests concerned with the wetlands issue participated in an open exchange of ideas and information marks an important step forward. We believe that it is imperative that this cooperative attitude be maintained, and that there are a variety of ways in which this might be accomplished. Perhaps the simplest would be a small-scale pilot project and research effort to determine the effects of wetland maintenance on summer fallow areas. Such a research program would provide not only useful information, but an opportunity for many of the affected interests to begin working toward mutually acceptable solutions to the overall wetlands issue.

North Dakota↗