SEARCH · USGS Science
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
No abstract available.
Executive Summary The purpose of this Wake Atoll Vessel Movement Biosecurity Program Efficacy document is to provide the United States Air Force (USAF) with an unbiased review of the current (2015; hereafter referred to as the 2015 Biosecurity Plan) biosecurity plan for the military base Wake Island Airfield (WIA) on Wake Atoll (hereafter Wake). Periodic reviews are an integral step for evaluating plan efficacy and updating plans with new information for improving plan effectiveness. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) acted as an external expert to provide the first unbiased assessment of the program and observe how it was being implemented. The USAF 2015 Wake Island Biosecurity Management Plan goes beyond sea vessel and container biosecurity; however, those aspects were not included in this evaluation. We used several methods for a quality assurance evaluation of the 2015 sea vessel and shipping container biosecurity program specified in the Biosecurity Plan. Our evaluation included real-time observations in Hawai`i and at Wake. We surveyed cargo staging areas and empty shipping containers before supply shipment and the containers, barge, and marina at Wake after shipment. We used various detection tools and techniques (for example, visual encounter surveys, glue boards, chew cards, camera traps, and so on). We carried out an insect mortality experiment trial using one of the required shipping container biosecurity tools (dichlorvos impregnated pest strips). We also included a table-top review of documentation (largely the 2015 Biosecurity Plan) with respect to our observations to provide an assessment of how well the Biosecurity Plan protocols were carried out and how well they serve their intended purpose. We observed biosecurity concerns in each focal area and stage of cargo handling (before and after barge movement) across all surveys of containers, flat racks, break bulk, warehouses, and dock areas. Using visual inspections, we recorded biosecurity concerns for every empty container we inspected before it was to be stuffed with cargo. Most containers had structural integrity issues (such as holes and damaged floorboards) and sanitation concerns, including live animals and plant matter or seeds. About one third of the containers had mold and a few had wet floorboards or standing water. We detected live animals on the break bulk, and flat racks were in poor condition. Next, we inspected cargo staging areas and noted extensive permeability of the building where cargo was staged for the 2018 resupply shipment and the building that had typically been used. We included the adjacent dock area used for staging break bulk, shipping containers and mooring the barge. We detected more than 5,000 individuals of 105 species. We also detected seeds in each location and scattered vegetation in the dock area, including growing in from the area outside separated by a chain link fence. During surveys at Wake, we observed that 100 percent of the shipping containers, including all containers sent with required biosecurity tools, had live animals. The barge had only one unsecured snap trap for intercepting rodents aboard, we saw areas with fairly deep layers of dirt (or soil; we did not examine it to determine its properties), and there was plant matter with seed heads on the barge gangway that could easily be transported onto the barge. There was also only one snap trap station that was improperly placed on the dock. We also observed piled wood and vegetation nearby that could provide refuge to potential stowaway animals escaping. Combined, surveys of the containers, staging areas, barges, and receiving area in Hawai`i and at Wake resulted in detection of more than 9,000 individuals of 131 animal species; nearly 4,000 individuals of 62 species were detected in surveys of containers once they had arrived at Wake. None of the species identified are known to be native to Wake. Our preliminary risk analysis of all species detected included eight species that we scored as high risk of potentially negative effects to biodiversity, infrastructure, or human health should they arrive at Wake and become established. Six of these species were only recorded using tools not clearly required by the Biosecurity Plan or being used to implement the plan. We observed that the required biosecurity tools intended to intercept animals in the cargo staging area did not target the suite nor number of species present. Our analysis also indicated the required biosecurity tools intended to intercept animals in shipping containers were inadequate to handle the volume of organisms that were in the containers. The insect mortality trial experiment showed the pest strips were highly effective for only one of the three species tested, leaving uncertainty about how effective they are across the suite of potential species stowing away in cargo and containers. Base Operating Support (BOS) did not carry out all Biosecurity Plan actions, but we also noted the document uses terminology such as “recommendation” as opposed to “requirement” which may lead contractors to consider those actions as optional. However, USAF provided evidence of BOS training and follow up; this included detailed identification of specific requirements for some of the biosecurity actions that we did not observe being carried out. The 2015 Biosecurity Plan contains critical and useful components that seem to be well carried out. However, we also saw discrepancies, weaknesses, or both across methods and protocols currently used for Wake Atoll biosecurity. We observed shortcomings at each stage of our survey as well as in the plan as written, and we suggest general modifications to the Biosecurity Plan for consideration to potentially strengthen biosecurity overall. Prevention is the most efficient and cost-effective biosecurity measure. Based on our findings, we see possible solutions to improve existing preventative biosecurity efforts and reduce potential incursion at Wake. These potential solutions include creating and implementing the following: Minimum cargo staging area sanitation and permeability standards, Minimum shipping container integrity and sanitation standards, Stand-alone inspection protocols, Inspection checklists, Monitoring protocols, Accountability reporting, Horizon scanning for prioritizing and targeting species of highest concern, Expansion of educational materials and outreach, Schedules for biosecurity plan reviews and updates Management of invasive species enhances capability to protect human health and the environment as well as to advance mission accomplishment. Biosecurity plans are an integral component for addressing invasive species. Periodic evaluation of the efficacy of these plans is useful for identifying elements that are working well and for illuminating those that can be improved. Evaluations encourage consideration of new tools and adaptation of processes to achieve better outcomes and accommodate potential future threats more efficiently and more cost effectively.
This final report summarizes activities, outcomes, and lessons learned from a 3-year project titled “Climate Change Adaptation for Coastal National Wildlife Refuges” with the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and local partners in the surrounding South Carolina Lowcountry. The Lowcountry is classified as the 10-county area encompassing the coastal plain of South Carolina (this report specifically focuses on Berkeley, Charleston, and Georgetown Counties). The goals of this work, sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center (SECASC), were to foster active engagement with stakeholders; to develop a comprehensive definition of adaptation problems faced by agencies, organizations, and individuals near the Cape Romain NWR that accounts for global change, local values, knowledge and perceptions; and to encourage social learning and building of effective networks and trust across South Carolina Lowcountry organizations and individuals. Although project scoping began at the scale of the Atlantic seaboard, by engaging with NWRs from Massachusetts to Florida, participating refuge personnel eventually selected the Cape Romain NWR to serve as a case study for testing our goals. The Cape Romain Partnership for Coastal Conservation was established to address global change impacts at a regional level and includes representation from Federal and State resource agencies, local conservation nongovernmental organizations, and organizations representing underserved community interests. Research topics, originating from discussions with Cape Romain Partnership for Coastal Conservation members, focused on quantifying key drivers of change including localized sea-level rise (SLR) predictions, estimates of coastal hurricane inundation as amplified by SLR, and urban growth trends and forecasts. These key drivers provided a foundation to engage stakeholders in planning exercises to begin a process of collective understanding and collaborative decision making. The goal of this process was to develop collective strategies of adaptation to enhance community and ecosystem resilience in the South Carolina Lowcountry. South Carolina’s Lowcountry is experiencing rapid environmental and social transformation because of SLR rates approaching twice the global average, chronic tidal flooding and catastrophic storm surges, erosion and loss of habitats that provide essential services to wildlife and humans, and increasing social polarization fueled by aggressive low-density urban growth and other forms of land conversion. To support characterizations of plausible future scenarios, we used available or, in some cases, developed new models to project future conditions of key environmental and social-economic drivers. Because of the imprecision of mean global SLR projections, the SECASC commissioned a climatological study to account for local conditions and multiple representative concentration pathways to project a tailored distribution of future sea levels. These projections were matched to SLR scenarios provided by existing models to anticipate the range of future coastal habitat changes in the South Carolina Lowcountry. SLR scenarios were also incorporated into existing storm-surge models, which do not account for alternate baseline sea levels, to project the local effects of future hurricanes. To evaluate the extent and effects of population growth and urban expansion, we relied on an existing urban-growth model to map the spatial distribution of land-conversion probabilities, the total area of which is predicted to increase twofold to threefold over the next 60 years. In addition to this simplified model, an econometric model is in development to account for nonlinear feedback dynamics in land value, land use, and ecosystem service production. Although not yet completed, the goals of this model are to produce more-detailed projections of growth dynamics and to allow predictions of development patterns resulting from alternate land-use planning policies and incentives. Collaborative planning for an uncertain future requires more than providing decision makers with information on future physical and ecological conditions; developing effective and consensual strategies must also integrate sociological values, multiple cultural perspectives, and an understanding of human behavior. To support broad stakeholder engagement in integrative approaches to adaptation planning, emphasis was placed on the importance of considering differences in how individuals perceive their environment and create meaning. Because cultural frameworks form the basis for perceptions and, ultimately, the behaviors of individuals and institutions, we describe a model of human behavior and how it can be used to understand the effect of cultural complexity and variation in perception on choices, behavioral change, and long-term maintenance of behaviors. We consider a model commonly used in the field of behavioral health that accommodates variation in human perception when describing stages of behavior and the dynamics of behavioral change. Tailoring communication and engagement activities to targeted stakeholders is likely to benefit from increased understanding of behavioral change processes. The complex nature of this problem limited the usefulness of a traditional decision-analytic approach, we explored alternative methods for engagement, collaborative learning and decision making. Recognizing that project partners and Lowcountry stakeholders may be at different stages of preparedness and interest level for modifying behavior as a function of global change, we facilitated a scenario-planning exercise to familiarize partners with this well-established approach for communicating the opportunities and threats arising under alternative, plausible futures. We developed narratives for four alternative South Carolina Lowcountry scenarios to be used in later strategic planning that focus on quantitative trends for three primary drivers with high impact and high uncertainty: manifestations of climate change, social-political shifts at a global level, and forces of local value and power structures. This scenario-planning exercise underscored the complex relation between the temporospatial scale of the production of ecological goods and services and the institutional scale at which they are managed. We then guided the partners through an assessment of the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the Cape Romain Partnership for Coastal Protection, using the threats and opportunities characterized by each scenario to understand how the partnership might respond when attempting to meet conservation and societal objectives. The partnership identified key strengths including partnership experience, outreach and technical capacities, a substantial conservation land base, and high social cohesion in the South Carolina Lowcountry. Limited communication expertise, institutional inertia, and insufficient staffing and funding were recognized as important weaknesses across the partnership. By examining and scoring combinations of internal strengths and weaknesses and external threats and opportunities, the partnership developed sets of prioritized strategies to consider in the context of a given scenario. Although we had insufficient time to examine all scenarios in detail, the intent was to identify a portfolio of strategic actions to address threats and opportunities represented in multiple plausible futures. Top-ranking strategies encompassed a range of actions that focused on strengthening the conservation community and communicating the benefits of nature (that is, ecosystem services) to leveraging partnerships to expand land protection. This report also details the methods and preliminary results of several models developed or applied in support of this project. Two parcel-selection algorithms were used to evaluate anticipated habitat changes and patterns of urban growth to guide decisions on optimal conservation reserve design to protect habitat communities. One approach used a widely available planning software (MARXAN) to maximize conservation benefits near the Cape Romain NWR, whereas the other approach was a novel application of economic theory to account for uncertainty in future conditions and for the risks of unanticipated habitat loss. This latter model applies modern portfolio theory to estimate the risk of investing in any portfolio of land parcels (that is, candidate “reserves”) under climate-change uncertainty by quantifying the variation and spatial correlation of conservation benefits derived from each portfolio. We expanded the range of actions beyond simply whether or not to invest in a set of land parcels, an approach commonly used in spatial conservation planning, to also include consideration of divestment from currently protected lands. Such refinements allow for better accounting of system dynamics and can evaluate the benefits of flexible conservation tools such as rolling easements. Model results were conditional on a decision maker’s risk tolerance but highlighted general strategies of land conservation to increase future habitat representation beyond what is expected under the current protected land base. We built models that may help inform coastal planning by estimating salinity dynamics and the performance of oyster reef restoration efforts to predict the combined effects of global change and management of freshwater flows on coastal habitats and the processes that contribute to their resilience. These models can support restoration decisions by evaluating the expected benefits of site locations for shoreline protection and fisheries production. Lastly, we developed a spatially explicit economic model that predicts feedback dynamics among land value, land-use change, and effects on ecosystem service provision to explore zoning policies and incentives on urban growth and ecosystem services. We summarize these efforts with insights and considerations for the Cape Romain Partnership for Coastal Protection to continue to engage stakeholders in effective adaptation planning. First, notions of place attachment (referred to as sense of place), and the role of culture in social discourse are increasingly being used to understand the complex interactions between society and the environment and how societies respond and adapt to climate change. Sense of place was a unifying theme whenever the future of the South Carolina Lowcountry was discussed. The contribution of the South Carolina Lowcountry’s environmental wealth, rich cultural heritage, and quality of life to sense of place has important implications for how adaptation planning might best be pursued. More community-based governance of the commons (in other words, natural and cultural resources held in common), in which broad stakeholder participation and power sharing are key elements, is considered important. This devolution of governance is characterized by polycentric institutions and self-organizing social networks that promote a local culture of knowledge sharing, problem solving, and learning. These so-called bridging organizations (or individuals) often provide the leadership necessary to bring together potentially disparate Government agencies and institutions, private organizations, and individuals in a collective process of problem solving. Our observations also suggest that the conservation community in the South Carolina Lowcountry views its activities as integral to the broader governance of social-ecological systems, in which responses to the forces of global change are mediated through culture, economics, and politics. Rather than directly competing with other interests, the South Carolina Lowcountry conservation community seems to embrace an interpretation of conservation in which the fundamental objective is the quality of human life rather than environmental protection. Fundamental to the types of governance reforms described above is the notion of coproduction, in which experts and users collaborate to develop a shared body of knowledge. In this approach, scientists work with stakeholders to help frame questions, design research, and collect and analyze data. Such sustained collaborations are increasingly believed to be an effective way to produce useable (or actionable) science. The emphasis on social learning, leveraging strong social networks, coordinating and deliberating among diverse stakeholders, and applying principles of adaptive management is an essential contribution to adaptive capacity. The diverse and robust set of scientific approaches, methods to help stakeholders collaborate in effective and goal-driven planning processes, and decision tools resulting from this project hopefully will assist Cape Romain NWR and its partners prepare for climatic, ecological, and social changes over the coming decades.
As part of the model improvement effort for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan, the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models used during previous master plans were reevaluated to assess how the model relationships could be improved, and to determine what species should be included in the master plan analyses. This process considered the technical reviews, comments, and suggested improvements provided by model developers, advisory groups, and other experts during previous master plans. Reviews were then conducted to determine the availability of data and information that could be used to make model improvements. As a result of this effort, a recommended list of relevant species to model is provided, and HSI model improvements are recommended that are categorized by whether the suitability index (SI) relationship to be improved is statistical-based or literature-based. The species recommended to be included in the 2023 Coastal Master Plan analyses are: eastern oyster, brown shrimp, white shrimp, blue crab, crayfish, gulf menhaden, spotted seatrout, largemouth bass, American alligator, gadwall, mottled duck, brown pelican, seaside sparrow, and bald eagle. These species were selected because they represent a range of taxonomies, life histories, trophic levels, and habitats, and most are commercially- or recreationally-important in coastal Louisiana. Most of these species were also included in the 2017 Coastal Master Plan analyses, and the models used during that effort should be further improved. Seaside sparrow and bald eagle are new for the master plan, and new models should be developed for the analyses. The 2017 fish, shrimp, and blue crab HSI models included a water quality SI that was based on statistical analyses of species catch and environmental data collected by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. As suggested during the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, the modeling approach used to develop the water quality SI was revisited and alternate modeling approaches were explored. Using literature and an evaluation of the general steps of model development, three components for HSI model improvement were identified, including 1) selecting alternative modeling approach(es); 2) detecting and resolving statistical issues; and 3) improving model fit and evaluation. Multiple options for each component were explored, which resulted in a proposed multi-step phased approach for model improvement. This proposed approach entails improving the generalized linear models used for the 2017 water quality SIs and then, if desired, comparing them to alternative model approaches (e.g., generalized additive models) to explore model performance and select the best approach to use for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan HSI models. All of the existing master plan HSI models include literature-based SIs, which use information from published studies of species-habitat associations to derive suitability relationships. Similar to previous master plans, these literature-based SIs should be updated and improved for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan using recent literature and new ecological knowledge. Preliminary reviews were conducted and recent information was found that could be used to improve the eastern oyster, crayfish, and potentially brown pelican HSI models; but no appropriate recent literature was located for improvement of the American alligator, gadwall, and mottled duck HSI models. However, it is recommended that the literature reviews and information searches be continued. In addition to the statistical-based water quality SI, the 2017 fish, shrimp, and blue crab HSI models also included a structural habitat SI that was based on literature showing high densities of these species in fragmented marsh. The relationship used for this SI, however, did not account for the effects of other estuarine habitats, such as submerged aquatic vegetation and oyster reefs, which are also important to these species. Therefore, a meta-analysis approach is proposed that would estimate the relative importance of these habitats for each species, and the results of this analysis could be used to calculate a new structural habitat SI for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan.
An inventory of the use of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) products in studies, plans, implementation, and other planning activities was made for seven selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region -- a region of over five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of over 100 earth-science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all seven agencies have staff members who are familiar with SFBRS products and make frequent use of them; (2) all seven agencies have prepared planning documents citing SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were water-quality and physical resources studies, potential site evaluation, and general reference; (4) almost 80 percent of the over 100 SFBRS products were used at least once, and eleven of the products were used 20 or more times each for various regional planning activities; and (5) at least 46 other USGS products were also used for various regional planning activities. During the inventory, over 50 regional agency. officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked -- among other things -- to indicate any problems they had noted in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any additional earth-science information needed or desired. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for "work" maps were 1:62,500 or larger, and for "implementation" maps were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) two agencies have a geologist on their planning staff, others have staff members with training or experience in earth-science or engineering, and all had the benefit of geotechnical services from outside their agency; (3) all seven agencies experienced some problems in using the products, primarily because the scale was too small or the detail not great enough; (4) all seven agencies expressed interest in the topical interpretive reports in preparation and a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other related information; (5) six of the seven agencies suggested specific improvements to future products -- primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretive information; and (6) all seven agencies received educational, advisory or review services from USGS personnel. Fifteen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various regional planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include six planning studies, five plans, two implementation activities, and two other types of activities. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the selected regional agencies in the bay region are familiar with, make frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of regional planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring and analyzing new State and Federal laws or regulations and emerging critical issues so as to anticipate and respond to regional earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by regional agencies; (6) releasing earth-science information faster and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.
Two of the most significant management efforts affecting waterfowl populations in North America are the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (the Plan) and Federal harvest management programs. Both the Plan and harvest management are continental in scope, involve an extensive group of stakeholders, and rely on adaptive processes of biological planning, implementation, and evaluation. The development of these programs has occurred independently, however, and there has been little explicit recognition that both harvest and habitat effects should be considered for coherent management planning and evaluation. For example, the harvest strategy can affect whether population objectives of the Plan are met, irrespective of the success of the Plan's habitat conservation efforts. Conversely, habitat conservation activities under the Plan can influence harvest potential and, therefore, the amount of hunting opportunity provided. It seems increasingly clear that the Plan's waterfowl population objectives can only be useful for conservation planning and evaluation if they are accompanied by an explicit specification of the harvest strategy and environmental conditions under which they are to be achieved. This clarification also is necessary to ensure that Plan population objectives are not attained solely through the reduction of hunting opportunity. We believe then that it is imperative that these key waterfowl-management programs work to harmonize their objectives. Harvest management programs and the Plan ought to be working toward the same ends, but that is not possible so long as the mutually reinforcing relationship of these programs is obscured by ambiguities in their management objectives.
Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities, provide a context for resolving issues, guide specific projects, provide rationale for decisions, and offer a defensible link among management actions, refuge purpose(s), Service policy, and the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission. Pursuant to Refuge Planning Policy (602 FW 1, 3, 4), this handbook offers guidance on how to write goals and objectives for national wildlife refuges and provides counsel on their development. While the handbook specifically addresses biology and visitor services, you can also utilize this guidance when developing goals and objectives for other refuge programs. Several assumptions are basic to this handbook. The handbook focuses on the mechanics of writing sound goals and objectives. Detailed guidance on what information to consider, collect, interpret, and synthesize into goals and objectives is beyond the scope of this handbook. It views a vision statement as the synthesis of a refuge’s purpose(s), the Refuge System mission and goals, and other biological, legal, and social concerns in which the refuge has a role. It also assumes a familiarity with the hierarchical nature of planning and where, within a planning process, the writing of goals and objectives occurs. This guidance applies to conceptual management plans, comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs), step-down management plans (e.g., habitat management, visitor services, fire management), or any other planning document incorporating goals and objectives, including strategic documents developed under the Government Performance and Results Act. We intend this guidance for use by an internal audience tasked with writing refuge goals and objectives, primarily refuge managers, biologists, visitor services specialists, planners, and other members of refuge planning teams. Still, it recognizes that we should write goals and objectives so that interested members of the public can understand them, to the extent this does not jeopardize the technical accuracy or reduce the inclusion of necessary information. The terminology and definitions used in this handbook are widely accepted in the planning field and are not inconsistent with more recent application in strategic planning. Perhaps most important, the handbook presumes all goals and objectives must further the specific purpose(s) of the refuge and the broader mission of the Refuge System, as well as be consistent with Refuge Planning Policy and any other relevant Service policy and directives.
Context Development of systematic methods for conservation planning has improved effectiveness and efficiency of implementing such plans. The lesser prairie-chicken ( Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ) is a grouse species of conservation concern native to the southwestern Great Plains of the United States. Recent lesser prairie-chicken conservation planning has involved identifying ecologically important areas but has not incorporated economic data into prioritization of areas to target for conservation management. Objectives We used the program Marxan to develop a decision-support tool for managers in Kansas to prioritize tracts for improving lesser prairie-chicken habitat quality and increasing habitat availability. We developed three different conservation scenarios and evaluated the tradeoffs among multiple planning objectives in these scenarios. Methods We incorporated population targets from an existing conservation plan and agricultural economic data to help select land with maximum ecological value and minimum economic productivity to prioritize for lesser prairie-chicken conservation. We compared potential conservation plans and incorporated a post hoc connectivity model to test potential for individuals to travel among habitat patches in these plans during dispersal events. Results We found that different conservation scenarios led to different solutions, though differences varied by ecoregion. Potential solutions for all scenarios contained habitat patches not currently included in existing conservation plans and had high connectivity potential. Conclusions These results provide context for spatial prioritization of lesser prairie-chicken habitat management in Kansas. Application of this approach to species of conservation interest could help managers incorporate socioeconomic factors into planning methods and identify important tracts for conservation currently overlooked by existing planning methods.
Executive Summary Modern transportation and land-use planning efforts include information from many sources to address topics such as safety, efficiency, commercial, and social needs. This wide breadth of topics provides opportunities for collaboration and development of common tools for diverse users. In many cases, different information systems provide the spatial data and geographic content necessary for transportation and land-use planners to consider multiple lines of evidence. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and Federal Land Management Agency partners use detailed spatial and quantitative data to inform transportation decisions. However, logistic challenges to data sharing exist because data are often managed by separate agencies; data-exchange frameworks and interagency data agreements are insufficient; and consistency from aggregated data requires maintenance, coordination, and supporting infrastructure. The FLH and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively examined (1) use and availability of spatial data for transportation planning and (2) a possible mechanism to use more shared and consistent data in a common planning environment. The goals of this collaborative effort were to describe data needs from the perspective of planners and to identify opportunities for shared data resources. Results presented here focus on two workshops and a subsequent investigation of data and tools available from partner agencies. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe information used in transportation planning with geographic data; (2) identify spatially explicit data that inform transportation plans and could be shared among all partners; and (3) describe current platforms, planning and administrative opportunities, and potential barriers to developing an integrated planning tool. Key information and data needs were identified in three major classes: system, user, and influential factors. System data are parts of the transportation network and information about the condition of individual segments and the network. User data provide details about the function of the system and insights into potential needs; for example, user trips between source and destinations inform road and network demands that can lead to congestion and safety issues (in the future, user data might also include scenarios and projections based on land-use plans). Influential data represent social and environmental factors that influence transit demands and network conditions. These factors could be popular locations or seasonal events that influence demand and congestion; wildlife habitat or migration intersections that affect safety and management priorities; or geologic features that influence hazards, maintenance, and safety. Responses described here provide specific information for web-tool design and give a framework for interagency communication and cooperation to address specific information needs for integrated planning. Existing web-mapping and web-services, and the data that inform them, are also described. Commonly, these data are created and published by one agency, and the core users are outside of that agency; for example, threatened species distributions are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration by planners in advance of National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) evaluation. This report is provided to inform FLH leaders and Federal Land Management Agency partners by articulating user needs and requirements for integrated planning tool(s). Programmers creating a secure web-based data-sharing platform (with data-viewing, -analysis and -download functions) can use the information presented here to organize data and user interfaces. This integrated perspective can help FLH and Federal Land Management Agency partners develop transportation networks that better serve the needs of people in local communities and across States and the Nation.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pacific Region (Region 1) includes more than 158 million acres (almost 247,000 square miles) of land base in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawai`i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Region 1 is ecologically diverse with landscapes that range from coral reefs, broadleaf tropical forests, and tropical savannahs in the Pacific Islands, to glacial streams and lakes, lush old-growth rainforests, inland fjords, and coastal shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, to the forested mountains, shrub-steppe desert, and native grasslands in the Inland Northwest. Similarly, the people of the different landscapes perceive, value, and manage their natural resources in ways unique to their respective regions and cultures. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program work with a variety of partners in Region 1 including individual landowners, watershed councils, land trusts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, non-governmental organizations, Tribal governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, State, and Federal agencies. The Partners Program is the FWS's vanguard for working with private landowners to voluntarily restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat. Using non-regulatory incentives, the Partners Program engages willing partners to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on their property and in their communities. This is accomplished by providing the funding support and technical and planning tools needed to make on-the-ground conservation affordable, feasible, and effective. The primary goals of the Pacific Region Partners Program are to: Promote citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish and wildlife conservation Contribute to the recovery of at-risk species, Protect the environmental integrity of the National Wildlife Refuges, Contribute to the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, and Help achieve the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships and regionally based bird conservation plans (for example, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Pacific Island Shorebird Conservation Plans, Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, etc.). The Partners Program accomplishes these priorities by: Developing and maintaining strong partnerships, and delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration projects designed to reestablish habitat function and restore natural processes; Addressing key habitat limiting factors for declining species; Providing corridors for wildlife and decrease impediments to native fish and wildlife migration; and Enhancing native plant communities by reducing invasive species and improving native species composition. The Coastal Program is a voluntary fish and wildlife conservation program that focuses on watershed-scale, long-term collaborative resource planning and on-the-ground restoration projects in high-priority coastal areas. The Coastal Program conducts planning and restoration work on private, State, and Federal lands, and partnerships with other agencies-Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. Coastal Program goals include restoring and protecting coastal habitat, providing technical and cost-sharing assistance where appropriate, supporting community-based restoration, collecting and developing information on the status of and threats to fish and wildlife, and using outreach to promote stewardship of coastal resources. The diversity of habitats and partners in Region 1 present many opportunities for conducting restoration projects. Faced with this abundance of opportunity, the Partners Program and Coastal Program must ensure that limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for Federal trust species. In 2007, the Partners Program and Coastal Program developed a Strategic Plan to guide program operations and more efficiently conserve habitat by focusing partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Strategic Plan also contains four other goals: broaden and strengthen partnerships; improve information sharing and communications; enhance workforce; and increase accountability to ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively. This protocol will help achieve all goals of the Strategic Plan.
Agricultural irrigation in northern Indiana has increased rapidly since 1975 and might double by the year 2000. A 16.5 square-mile area in north-central Indiana was studied to determine possible effects of increased irrigation on local water supply. In 1982, an average of 2 inches of water was used to irrigate 975 acres of sandy soil overlying highly transmissive outwash deposits. Irrigational pumpage was 75 percent of the summer water use but was less than potential irrigational pumpage because (1) only one-third of the suitable land was irrigated, and (2) precipitation was near normal for the year. A three-dimensional digital flow model, calibrated with data collected in 1982, was used to simulate four hypothetical pumping plans representing various irrigational schemes and possible rainfall conditions: (1) 1982 acreage irrigated and 1982 (above normal) precipitation; (2) 1982 acreage irrigated and below-normal precipitation; (3) maximum acreage irrigated and normal precipitation; and (4) maximum acreage irrigated and below-normal precipitation. A fifth pumping plan was used to simulate maximum year-round water use. Plan 5 was not designed to simulate irrigational development but rather a maximum rate of withdrawal sustainable year-round until steady-state is reached. Of the four pumping plans that simulated irrigational pumpage, plan 4 had the greatest effect on ground- and surface-water supply. Compared with 1982 pumpage, this plan represented a thirteenfold increase in the volume of water pumped for irrigation from wells and from Turkey Creek, a stream bordering the area of study. The model predicted a potentiometric decline of as much as 20.7 feet over an 8-acre area of the aquifer. This decline was one-fourth of the available drawdown and would not dewater the source aquifer. Streamflow in Turkey Creek would be reduced 39 percent by simulated ground-water and surface-water pumpage but remaining flow would still be twice the 7-day, 10-year low flow. However, the model predicted that flow in two smaller streams would be reduced to zero. The rate of pumping used in plan 5 was nearly 4 times the pumping rate in 1982. Potentiometric decline for plan 5 was as much as 40 percent of available drawdown, and predicted streamflow reduction would cause flow in Turkey Creek to decrease below the 7-day, 10-year low flow. Results of plans 1, 2, 3, and 4 indicate that the outwash system provides adequate water for current (1982) needs and substantial growth for irrigation. However, maximum irrigational development might cause temporary, local competition for water in several parts of the area. Plan 5 indicates .that water use could increase substantially before effects of pumping would prevail year-round.
The practice of conservation occurs within complex socioecological systems fraught with challenges that require transparent, defensible, and often socially engaged project planning and management. Planning and decision support frameworks are designed to help conservation practitioners increase planning rigor, project accountability, stakeholder participation, transparency in decisions, and learning. We describe and contrast five common frameworks within the context of six fundamental questions (why, who, what, where, when, how) at each of three planning stages of adaptive management (project scoping, operational planning, learning). We demonstrate that decision support frameworks provide varied and extensive tools for conservation planning and management. However, using any framework in isolation risks diminishing potential benefits since no one framework covers the full spectrum of potential conservation planning and decision challenges. We describe two case studies that have effectively deployed tools from across conservation frameworks to improve conservation actions and outcomes. Attention to the critical questions for conservation project planning should allow practitioners to operate within any framework and adapt tools to suit their specific management context. We call on conservation researchers and practitioners to regularly use decision support tools as standard practice for framing both practice and research.
Executive Summary The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter called “sage-grouse”), a species that requires sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), has experienced range-wide declines in its distribution and abundance. These declines have prompted substantial research and management investments to improve the understanding of sage-grouse and its habitats and reverse declines in distribution and population numbers. Over the past two decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has responded to eight petitions to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with the completion of the most recent listing determination in September 2015. At that time, the USFWS determined that the sage-grouse did not warrant a listing, primarily because of the large scale science-based conservation and planning efforts completed or started by Federal, State, local agencies, private landowners, and other entities across the range. The planning efforts culminated in the development of the 2015 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service Land Use Plan Amendments, which provided regulatory certainty and commitment from Federal land-management agencies to limit, mitigate, and track anthropogenic disturbance and implement other sage-grouse conservation measures. After these policy decisions, the scientific community has continued to refine and expand the knowledge available to inform implementation of management actions, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those actions, and continue developing an overall understanding of sage-grouse populations, habitat requirements, and their response to human activity and other habitat changes. The development of science has been driven by multiple prioritization documents including the “Greater Sage-Grouse National Research Strategy” (Hanser and Manier, 2013) and, most recently, the “Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan” (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016). In October 2017, after a review of the 2015 Federal plans relative to State sage-grouse plans, in accordance with Secretarial Order 3353, the BLM issued a notice of intent to consider whether to amend some, all, or none of the 2015 land use plans. At that time, the BLM requested the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to inform this effort through the development of an annotated bibliography of sage-grouse science published since January 2015 and a report that synthesized and outlined the potential management implications of this new science. Development of the annotated bibliography resulted in the identification and summarization of 169 peer-reviewed scientific publications and reports. The USGS then convened an interagency team (hereafter referred to as the “team”) to develop this report that focuses on the primary topics of importance to the ongoing management of sage-grouse and their habitats. The team developed this report in a three-step process. First, the team identified six primary topic areas for discussion based on the members’ collective knowledge regarding sage-grouse, their habitats, and threats to either or both. Second, the team reviewed all the material in the “Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Research on Greater Sage-Grouse Published since January 2015” to identify the science that addressed the topics. Third, team members discussed the science related to each topic, evaluated the consistency of the science with existing knowledge before 2015, and summarized the potential management implications of this science. The six primary topics identified by the team were: Multiscale habitat suitability and mapping tools Discrete anthropogenic activities Diffuse activities Fire and invasive species Restoration effectiveness Population estimation and genetics