USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Richard Bernknopf

Publications and source records attributed to Richard Bernknopf.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2019

Multi-resource analysis: A proof of concept study of natural resource tradeoffs in the Piceance Basin, Colorado, using the net resources assessment (NetRA) decision support tool

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing a multi-resource analysis (MRA) line of products to inform land-use decision makers. Specifically, MRA products will integrate scientific information, include considerations for natural resource interrelations, and quantify the effects of resource management decisions in biophysical, economic, and societal terms. As part of the establishment of the MRA, the USGS, in collaboration with the University of New Mexico, has developed the Net Resources Assessment (NetRA) decision support tool. As a proof of concept analysis, the NetRA was applied to the Piceance basin in Colorado in a hypothetical example to illustrate how resource managers could use the NetRA to consider tradeoffs of natural resources among alternative development plans and land cover patterns within a geographic region. The NetRA is a policy-relevant approach to assess the availability of multiple natural resources. It is an analytical toolset that may be used to examine the spatiotemporal relations between development of energy and mineral resources and delivery of biological natural resources. The NetRA operates at multiple map scales and contains a set of integrated, compatible submodels with specific data requirements for natural resource stocks, engineering economics, biophysical, and ecological data for ecosystem services stocks, market prices, regulations, and nonmarket values. The NetRA includes an explicit process to consider the interdependence between development and conservation, which is a crucial consideration in land-management and land-use decisions. The NetRA is used to estimate an expected net resource value (NRV). The NRV is the expected, present value, economic benefit from the extraction of a resource (for example, natural gas) minus the total cost of production, which is the aggregation of the development, production, and social costs. Social costs include private costs plus any external costs. There can be external social benefits associated with natural gas production, such as increased demand for locally produced goods and increased employment in the local area through backward and forward linkages of natural gas production. The NRV is used to compare development outcomes (scenarios) from a range of exploration and development plans for cumulative energy production. The Piceance basin application of the NetRA uses the NRV to assess the tradeoff between continuous natural gas extraction and the effects to the local populations of Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer) and aquatic species and to consumptive water uses for an area the size and resolution of a USGS energy resource assessment unit. In the proof of concept simulation, the 2.9-square-mile-area of USGS oil and gas assessment unit 50200263 (Piceance basin continuous gas unit of the Mesaverde Total Petroleum System) was gridded into 588 cells. From this area, seven clusters with potential for development and three that cannot be developed were identified; the three clusters that cannot be developed were identified as wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and national forests. On the basis of these criteria, there are 118 cells unsuitable for development in the oil and gas assessment unit: 84 are in national forests, 23 are areas of critical environmental concern, and 11 are wilderness study areas. The remaining cells in the oil and gas assessment unit can be developed on both private and public lands. Two scenarios were considered that are distinguished as plan 1 and plan 2. Plan 1 keeps the amount of land disturbance unchanged and limits the number of development locations to 140 grid cells for the production period, which constrains the amount of the energy resources available for development; the plan requires the usage of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unsuitability criteria. Plan 2 also limits the number of development locations to 140 grid cells for the production period but provides a constant volume of energy production by increasing the density of well pads within the cells. The effects of plan 2 to the NRV when there are five wells per pad and five pads per square mile happen mostly in the first 5 years of development, even though the effects on the population of mule deer continue in later years. This outcome is the result of the upfront development and investment costs and the initial effect to the ecosystem services.

Colorado↗
USGS2018

Multi-Resource Analysis—Methodology and synthesis

This document introduces the Multi-Resource Analysis (MRA), a set of products that are being designed to integrate information on multiple natural resources in a region, combine that information with models of resource interrelationships and scenarios of change, and provide meaningful insights on the implications of those changes to people and the resources they value. The MRA builds from and enhances a wide range of existing U.S. Geological Survey assessment products. These enhancements will help natural resource managers better understand the connections among the resources they manage and the changes that might occur due to natural events and human decisions. This knowledge will help them identify solutions to landscape-scale management issues that best meet their objectives. MRA products are developed through a structured process that brings together scientists, decision makers, and other stakeholders to address relevant issues and decisions for a specified geographic region, ensuring that the analysis is directly relevant. This circular introduces the MRA, describes the envisioned process for developing a region-specific MRA, and discusses the various MRA components and products. The MRA process and products are shown through descriptions and examples drawn from two proof-of-concept studies and related work.

Circular↗
USGS2016

Assessing the socioeconomic impact and value of open geospatial information

The production and accessibility of geospatial information including Earth observation is changing greatly both technically and in terms of human participation. Advances in technology have changed the way that geospatial data are produced and accessed, resulting in more efficient processes and greater accessibility than ever before. Improved technology has also created opportunities for increased participation in the gathering and interpretation of data through crowdsourcing and citizen science efforts. Increased accessibility has resulted in greater participation in the use of data as prices for Government-produced data have fallen and barriers to access have been reduced. The increase in participation in the production and in the use of data, defined as data democracy for this workshop, are having great impacts on economics and more generally on society. There is also a strong drive by governments around the world, as shown by the G8 Declaration in June 2013, to make public sector information and scientific data more widely accessible. These are respectively termed “open data” and “open research data.” This report summarizes discussion at the Workshop on Assessing the Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information held at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in October 2014. Workshop participants examined the consequences of expanding data democracy with a focus on its socioeconomic impacts. Evaluations were presented of state-of-the-art methods to assess these socioeconomic impacts, which included position papers and remarks by discussants. The workshop included discussions about the following topics: (1) increased and expanded information sources; (2) societal impacts, including approaches to economics assessments; (3) constraints to open access, including the demands for return on investment, specifications of intellectual property rights, and privacy issues; and (4) learning from the experiences of other data-rich domains, such as environmental management, internet businesses, health, and transportation. The workshop was a working meeting with strong participant engagement, leading to recommendations for action. The meeting included five topic-driven sessions and keynote presentations. Precirculated position papers for each panel session facilitated preparation and remarks by discussants. After the position papers are updated following the discussants’ remarks, it is planned to submit them for publication. The workshop included 68 participants coming from international organizations, the U.S. public and private sectors, nongovernmental organizations, and academia. Participants included policy makers and analysts, financial analysts, economists, information scientists, geospatial practitioners, and other discipline experts.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Estimating the Cumulative Ecological Effect of Local Scale Landscape Changes in South Florida

Ecosystem restoration in south Florida is a state and national priority centered on the Everglades wetlands. However, urban development pressures affect the restoration potential and remaining habitat functions of the natural undeveloped areas. Land use (LU) planning often focuses at the local level, but a better understanding of the cumulative effects of small projects at the landscape level is needed to support ecosystem restoration and preservation. The South Florida Ecosystem Portfolio Model (SFL EPM) is a regional LU planning tool developed to help stakeholders visualize LU scenario evaluation and improve communication about regional effects of LU decisions. One component of the SFL EPM is ecological value (EV), which is evaluated through modeled ecological criteria related to ecosystem services using metrics for (1) biodiversity potential, (2) threatened and endangered species, (3) rare and unique habitats, (4) landscape pattern and fragmentation, (5) water quality buffer potential, and (6) ecological restoration potential. In this article, we demonstrate the calculation of EV using two case studies: (1) assessing altered EV in the Biscayne Gateway area by comparing 2004 LU to potential LU in 2025 and 2050, and (2) the cumulative impact of adding limestone mines south of Miami. Our analyses spatially convey changing regional EV resulting from conversion of local natural and agricultural areas to urban, industrial, or extractive use. Different simulated local LU scenarios may result in different alterations in calculated regional EV. These case studies demonstrate methods that may facilitate evaluation of potential future LU patterns and incorporate EV into decision making.

Florida↗
USGS2011

Recovering from the ShakeOut earthquake

Recovery from an earthquake like the M7.8 ShakeOut Scenario will be a major endeavor taking many years to complete. Hundreds of Southern California municipalities will be affected; most lack recovery plans or previous disaster experience. To support recovery planning this paper 1) extends the regional ShakeOut Scenario analysis into the recovery period using a recovery model, 2) localizes analyses to identify longer-term impacts and issues in two communities, and 3) considers the regional context of local recovery.Key community insights about preparing for post-disaster recovery include the need to: geographically diversify city procurement; set earthquake mitigation priorities for critical infrastructure (e.g., airport), plan to replace mobile homes with earthquake safety measures, consider post-earthquake redevelopment opportunities ahead of time, and develop post-disaster recovery management and governance structures. This work also showed that communities with minor damages are still sensitive to regional infrastructure damages and their potential long-term impacts on community recovery. This highlights the importance of community and infrastructure resilience strategies as well.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2010

Public review draft: A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Section 712, authorizes the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a methodology and conduct an assessment of the Nation's ecosystems focusing on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and emissions of three greenhouse gases (GHGs): carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The major requirements include (1) an assessment of all ecosystems (terrestrial systems, such as forests, croplands, wetlands, shrub and grasslands; and aquatic ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes, and estuaries), (2) an estimation of annual potential capacities of ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration and reduce net GHG emissions in the context of mitigation strategies (including management and restoration activities), and (3) an evaluation of the effects of controlling processes, such as climate change, land use and land cover, and wildlfires. The purpose of this draft methodology for public review is to propose a technical plan to conduct the assessment. Within the methodology, the concepts of ecosystems, carbon pools, and GHG fluxes used for the assessment follow conventional definitions in use by major national and international assessment or inventory efforts. In order to estimate current ecosystem carbon stocks and GHG fluxes and to understand the potential capacity and effects of mitigation strategies, the method will use two time periods for the assessment: 2001 through 2010, which establishes a current ecosystem GHG baseline and will be used to validate the models; and 2011 through 2050, which will be used to assess future potential conditions based on a set of projected scenarios. The scenario framework is constructed using storylines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report Emission Scenarios (SRES), along with initial reference land-use and land-cover (LULC) and land-management scenarios. An additional three LULC and land-management mitigation scenarios will be constructed for each storyline to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce GHG fluxes in ecosystems. Input from regional experts and stakeholders will be solicited to construct realistic and meaningful scenarios. The methods for mapping the current LULC and ecosystem disturbances will require the extensive use of both remote-sensing data and in-situ (for example, forest inventory data) to capture and characterize landscape-change events. For future potential LULC and ecosystem disturbances, key drivers such as socioeconomic, policy, and climate assumptions will be used in addition to biophysical data. The product of these analyses will be a series of maps for each future year for each scenario. These annual maps will form the basis for estimating carbon storage and GHG emissions. For terrestrial ecosystems, carbon storage, carbon-sequestration capacities, and GHG emissions under the current and projected future conditions will be assessed using the LULC and ecosystem-disturbance estimates in map format with a spatially explicit biogeochemical ensemble modeling system that incorporates properties of management activities (such as tillage or harvesting) and properties of individual ecosystems (such as elevation, vegetation characteristics, and soil attributes). For aquatic ecosystems, carbon burial in sediments and GHG fluxes are functions of the current and projected future stream flow and sediment transports, and therefore will be assessed using empirical modeling methods. Validation and uncertainty analysis methods described in the methodology will follow established guidelines to assess the quality of the assessment results. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Level II ecoregions map (which delineates 24 ecoregions for the Nation) will be the practical instrument for developing and delivering assessment results. Consequently, the ecoregion will be the reporting unit of the assessment because the mitigation scenarios, assessment results, validation, and uncertainty analysis will be

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

he Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Section 712, mandates the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a methodology and conduct an assessment of the Nation’s ecosystems, focusing on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and emissions of three greenhouse gases (GHGs): carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The major requirements include (1) an assessment of all ecosystems (terrestrial systems, such as forests, croplands, wetlands, grasslands/shrublands; and aquatic ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes, and estuaries); (2) an estimate of the annual potential capacities of ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration and reduce net GHG emissions in the context of mitigation strategies (including management and restoration activities); and (3) an evaluation of the effects of controlling processes, such as climate change, land-use and land-cover change, and disturbances such as wildfires. The concepts of ecosystems, carbon pools, and GHG fluxes follow conventional definitions in use by major national and international assessment or inventory efforts. In order to estimate current ecosystem carbon stocks and GHG fluxes and to understand the potential capacity and effects of mitigation strategies, the method will use two time periods for the assessment: 2001 through 2010, which establishes a current ecosystem carbon and GHG baseline and will be used to validate the models; and 2011 through 2050, which will be used to assess potential capacities based on a set of scenarios. The scenario framework will be constructed using storylines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), along with both reference and enhanced land-use and land-cover (LULC) and land-management parameters. Additional LULC and land-management mitigation scenarios will be constructed for each storyline to increase carbon sequestration and reduce GHG fluxes in ecosystems. Input from regional experts and stakeholders will be solicited to construct these scenarios. The methods for mapping the current LULC and ecosystem disturbances will require the extensive use of both remote-sensing data and field-survey data (for example, forest inventories) to capture and characterize landscape-changing events. For potential LULC changes and ecosystem disturbances, key drivers such as socioeconomic and climate changes will be used in addition to the biophysical data. The result of these analyses will be a series of maps for each future year for each scenario. These annual maps will form the basis for estimating carbon storage and GHG emissions. For terrestrial ecosystems, carbon storage, carbon-sequestration capacities, and GHG emissions under the present conditions and future scenarios will be assessed using the LULC-change and ecosystem-disturbance estimates in map format with a spatially explicit biogeochemical ensemble modeling system that incorporates properties of management activities (such as tillage or harvesting) and properties of individual ecosystems (such as energy exchange, vegetation characteristics, hydrological cycling, and soil attributes). For aquatic ecosystems, carbon burial in sediments and fluxes of GHG are functions of the present and future potential stream flow and sediment transport and will be assessed using empirical hydrological modeling methods. Validation and uncertainty analysis methods described in the methodology will follow established guidelines to assess the quality of the assessment results. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Level II ecoregions map will be the practical instrument for developing and delivering assessment results. Consequently, the ecoregion (there are 22 modified ecoregions) will be the reporting unit of the assessment because the scenarios, assessment results, validation, and uncertainty analysis will be produced at that scale. The implementation of these methods will require collaborations among various Federal agencies, State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the science community. Using the method described in this document, the assessment can be completed in approximately 3 to 4 years. The primary deliverables will be assessment reports containing tables, charts, and maps that will present the estimated GHG parameters annually for 2001 through 2050 by ecosystem, pool, and scenario. The results will permit the evaluation of a range of policies, mitigation options, and research topics, such as the demographic, LULC-change, or climate-change effects on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and GHG fluxes in ecosystems.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2009

The South Florida Ecosystem Portfolio Model - A Map-Based Multicriteria Ecological, Economic, and Community Land-Use Planning Tool

The South Florida Ecosystem Portfolio Model (EPM) prototype is a regional land-use planning Web tool that integrates ecological, economic, and social information and values of relevance to decision-makers and stakeholders. The EPM uses a multicriteria evaluation framework that builds on geographic information system-based (GIS) analysis and spatially-explicit models that characterize important ecological, economic, and societal endpoints and consequences that are sensitive to regional land-use/land-cover (LULC) change. The EPM uses both economics (monetized) and multiattribute utility (nonmonetized) approaches to valuing these endpoints and consequences. This hybrid approach represents a methodological middle ground between rigorous economic and ecological/ environmental scientific approaches. The EPM sacrifices some degree of economic- and ecological-forecasting precision to gain methodological transparency, spatial explicitness, and transferability, while maintaining credibility. After all, even small steps in the direction of including ecosystem services evaluation are an improvement over current land-use planning practice (Boyd and Wainger, 2003). There are many participants involved in land-use decision-making in South Florida, including local, regional, State, and Federal agencies, developers, environmental groups, agricultural groups, and other stakeholders (South Florida Regional Planning Council, 2003, 2004). The EPM's multicriteria evaluation framework is designed to cut across the objectives and knowledge bases of all of these participants. This approach places fundamental importance on social equity and stakeholder participation in land-use decision-making, but makes no attempt to determine normative socially 'optimal' land-use plans. The EPM is thus a map-based set of evaluation tools for planners and stakeholders to use in their deliberations of what is 'best', considering a balancing of disparate interests within a regional perspective. Although issues of regional ecological sustainability can be explored with the EPM (for example, changes in biodiversity potential and regional habitat fragmentation), it does not attempt to define or evaluate long-term ecological sustainability as such. Instead, the EPM is intended to provide transparent first-order indications of the direction of ecological, economic, and community change, not to make detailed predictions of ecological, economic, and social outcomes. In short, the EPM is an attempt to widen the perspectives of its users by integrating natural and social scientific information in a framework that recognizes the diversity of values at stake in South Florida land-use planning. For terrestrial ecosystems, land-cover change is one of the most important direct drivers of changes in ecosystem services (Hassan and others, 2005). More specifically, the fragmentation of habitat from expanding low-density development across landscapes appears to be a major driver of terrestrial species decline and the impairment of terrestrial ecosystem integrity, in some cases causing irreversible impairment from a land-use planning perspective (Brody, 2008; Peck, 1998). Many resource managers and land-use planners have come to realize that evaluating land-use conversions on a parcel-by-parcel basis leads to a fragmented and narrow view of the regional effects of natural land-cover loss to development (Marsh and Lallas, 1995). The EPM is an attempt to integrate important aspects of the coupled natural-system/human-system view from a regional planning perspective. The EPM evaluates proposed land-use changes, both conversion and intensification, in terms of relevant ecological, economic, and social criteria that combine information about probable land-use outcomes, based on ecological and environmental models, as well as value judgments, as expressed in user-modifiable preference models. Based on on-going meetings and interviews with stakeholders and potential tool users we foc

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2008

The ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario— A story that southern Californians are writing

The question is not if but when southern California will be hit by a major earthquake - one so damaging that it will permanently change lives and livelihoods in the region. How severe the changes will be depends on the actions that individuals, schools, businesses, organizations, communities, and governments take to get ready. To help prepare for this event, scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have changed the way that earthquake scenarios are done, uniting a multidisciplinary team that spans an unprecedented number of specialties. The team includes the California Geological Survey, Southern California Earthquake Center, and nearly 200 other partners in government, academia, emergency response, and industry, working to understand the long-term impacts of an enormous earthquake on the complicated social and economic interactions that sustain southern California society. This project, the ShakeOut Scenario, has applied the best current scientific understanding to identify what can be done now to avoid an earthquake catastrophe. More information on the science behind this project will be available in The ShakeOut Scenario (USGS Open-File Report 2008-1150; http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/). The 'what if?' earthquake modeled in the ShakeOut Scenario is a magnitude 7.8 on the southern San Andreas Fault. Geologists selected the details of this hypothetical earthquake by considering the amount of stored strain on that part of the fault with the greatest risk of imminent rupture. From this, seismologists and computer scientists modeled the ground shaking that would occur in this earthquake. Engineers and other professionals used the shaking to produce a realistic picture of this earthquake's damage to buildings, roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure. From these damages, social scientists projected casualties, emergency response, and the impact of the scenario earthquake on southern California's economy and society. The earthquake, its damages, and resulting losses are one realistic outcome, deliberately not a worst-case scenario, rather one worth preparing for and mitigating against. Decades of improving the life-safety requirements in building codes have greatly reduced the risk of death in earthquakes, yet southern California's economic and social systems are still vulnerable to large-scale disruptions. Because of this, the ShakeOut Scenario earthquake would dramatically alter the nature of the southern California community. Fortunately, steps can be taken now that can change that outcome and repay any costs many times over. The ShakeOut Scenario is the first public product of the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project, created to show how hazards science can increase a community's resiliency to natural disasters through improved planning, mitigation, and response.

California↗
USGS2008

The ShakeOut Scenario

This is the initial publication of the results of a cooperative project to examine the implications of a major earthquake in southern California. The study comprised eight counties: Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Its results will be used as the basis of an emergency response and preparedness exercise, the Great Southern California ShakeOut, and for this purpose we defined our earthquake as occurring at 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2008. As members of the southern California community use the ShakeOut Scenario to plan and execute the exercise, we anticipate discussion and feedback. This community input will be used to refine our assessment and will lead to a formal publication in early 2009. Our goal in the ShakeOut Scenario is to identify the physical, social and economic consequences of a major earthquake in southern California and in so doing, enable the users of our results to identify what they can change now?before the earthquake?to avoid catastrophic impact after the inevitable earthquake occurs. To do so, we had to determine the physical damages (casualties and losses) caused by the earthquake and the impact of those damages on the region?s social and economic systems. To do this, we needed to know about the earthquake ground shaking and fault rupture. So we first constructed an earthquake, taking all available earthquake research information, from trenching and exposed evidence of prehistoric earthquakes, to analysis of instrumental recordings of large earthquakes and the latest theory in earthquake source physics. We modeled a magnitude (M) 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault, a plausible event on the fault most likely to produce a major earthquake. This information was then fed forward into the rest of the ShakeOut Scenario. The damage impacts of the scenario earthquake were estimated using both HAZUS-MH and expert opinion through 13 special studies and 6 expert panels, and fall into four categories: building damages, non-structural damages, damage to lifelines and infrastructure, and fire losses. The magnitude 7.8 ShakeOut earthquake is modeled to cause about 1800 deaths and $213 billion of economic losses. These numbers are as low as they are because of aggressive retrofitting programs that have increased the seismic resistance of buildings, highways and lifelines, and economic resiliency. These numbers are as large as they are because much more retrofitting could still be done. The earthquake modeled here may never happen. Big earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are inevitable, and by geologic standards extremely common, but probably will not be exactly like this one. The next very damaging earthquake could easily be on another fault. However, lessons learned from this particular event apply to many other events and could provide benefits in many possible future events.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Increasing resiliency to natural hazards - A strategic plan for the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project in Southern California

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is initiating a new project designed to improve resiliency to natural hazards in southern California through the application of science to community decision making and emergency response. The Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project will assist the region’s communities to reduce their risk from natural hazards by directing new and existing research towards the community’s needs, improving monitoring technology, producing innovative products, and improving dissemination of the results. The natural hazards to be investigated in this project include coastal erosion, earthquakes, floods, landslides, tsunamis, and wildfires. Americans are more at risk from natural hazards now than at any other time in our Nation’s history. Southern California, in particular, has one of the Nation’s highest potentials for extreme catastrophic losses due to natural hazards, with estimates of expected losses exceeding $3 billion per year. These losses can only be reduced through the decisions of the southern California community itself. To be effective, these decisions must be guided by the best information about hazards, risk, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The USGS will work with collaborators to set the direction of the research and to create multi-hazard risk frameworks where communities can apply the results of scientific research to their decision-making processes. Partners include state, county, city, and public-lands government agencies, public and private utilities, companies with a significant impact and presence in southern California, academic researchers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and local emergency response agencies. Prior to the writing of this strategic plan document, three strategic planning workshops were held in February and March 2006 at the USGS office in Pasadena to explore potential relationships. The goal of these planning sessions was to determine the external organizations’ needs for mitigation efforts before potential natural hazard events, and response efforts during and after the event. On the basis of input from workshop participants, four priority areas were identified for future research to address. They are (1) helping decision makers design planning scenarios, (2) improving upon the mapping of multiple hazards in urban areas, (3) providing real-time information from monitoring networks, and (4) integrating information in a risk and decision-making analysis. Towards this end, short-term and out-year goals have been outlined with the priorities in mind. First-year goals are (1) to engage the user community to establish the structures and processes for communications and interactions, (2) to develop a program to create scenarios of anticipated disasters, beginning in the first year with a scenario of a southern San Andreas earthquake that triggers secondary hazards, (3) to compile existing datasets of geospatial data, and (4) to target research efforts to support more complete and robust products in future years. Both the first-year and out-year goals have been formulated around a working-group structure that builds on existing research strengths within the USGS. The project is intended to demonstrate how developments in methodology and products can lead to improvement in our management of natural hazards in an urban environment for application across the Nation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

A cost-benefit analysis of The National Map

The Geography Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted this cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of The National Map. This analysis is an evaluation of the proposed Geography Discipline initiative to provide the Nation with a mechanism to access current and consistent digital geospatial data. This CBA is a supporting document to accompany the Exhibit 300 Capital Asset Plan and Business Case of The National Map Reengineering Program. The framework for estimating the benefits is based on expected improvements in processing information to perform any of the possible applications of spatial data. This analysis does not attempt to determine the benefits and costs of performing geospatial-data applications. Rather, it estimates the change in the differences between those benefits and costs with The National Map and the current situation without it. The estimates of total costs and benefits of The National Map were based on the projected implementation time, development and maintenance costs, rates of data inclusion and integration, expected usage levels over time, and a benefits estimation model. The National Map provides data that are current, integrated, consistent, complete, and more accessible in order to decrease the cost of implementing spatial-data applications and (or) improve the outcome of those applications. The efficiency gains in per-application improvements are greater than the cost to develop and maintain The National Map, meaning that the program would bring a positive net benefit to the Nation. The average improvement in the net benefit of performing a spatial data application was multiplied by a simulated number of application implementations across the country. The numbers of users, existing applications, and rates of application implementation increase over time as The National Map is developed and accessed by spatial data users around the country. Results from the 'most likely' estimates of model parameters and data inputs indicate that, over its 30-year projected lifespan, The National Map will bring a net present value (NPV) of benefits of $2.05 billion in 2001 dollars. The average time until the initial investments (the break-even period) are recovered is 14 years. Table ES-1 shows a running total of NPV in each year of the simulation model. In year 14, The National Map first shows a positive NPV, and so the table is highlighted in gray after that point. Figure ES-1 is a graph of the total benefit and total cost curves of a single model run over time. The curves cross in year 14, when the project breaks even. A sensitivity analysis of the input variables illustrated that these results of the NPV of The National Map are quite robust. Figure ES-2 plots the mean NPV results from 60 different scenarios, each consisting of fifty 30-year runs. The error bars represent a two-standard-deviation range around each mean. The analysis that follows contains the details of the cost-benefit analysis, the framework for evaluating economic benefits, a computational simulation tool, and a sensitivity analysis of model variables and values.

Circular↗
USGS2001

GRA prospectus: optimizing design and management of protected areas

Protected areas comprise one major type of global conservation effort that has been in the form of parks, easements, or conservation concessions. Though protected areas are increasing in number and size throughout tropical ecosystems, there is no systematic method for optimally targeting specific local areas for protection, designing the protected area, and monitoring it, or for guiding follow-up actions to manage it or its surroundings over the long run. Without such a system, conservation projects often cost more than necessary and/or risk protecting ecosystems and biodiversity less efficiently than desired. Correcting these failures requires tools and strategies for improving the placement, design, and long-term management of protected areas. The objective of this project is to develop a set of spatially based analytical tools to improve the selection, design, and management of protected areas. In this project, several conservation concessions will be compared using an economic optimization technique. The forest land use portfolio model is an integrated assessment that measures investment in different land uses in a forest. The case studies of individual tropical ecosystems are developed as forest (land) use and preservation portfolios in a geographic information system (GIS). Conservation concessions involve a private organization purchasing development and resource access rights in a certain area and retiring them. Forests are put into conservation, and those people who would otherwise have benefited from extracting resources or selling the right to do so are compensated. Concessions are legal agreements wherein the exact amount and nature of the compensation result from a negotiated agreement between an agent of the conservation community and the local community. Funds are placed in a trust fund, and annual payments are made to local communities and regional/national governments. The payments are made pending third-party verification that the forest expanse and quality have been maintained.

Open-File Report↗