Accommodating, balancing, and bargaining in hydropower licensing
No abstract available.
Resource Law Notes↗
SEARCH · USGS Science
Results for “Resource Law Notes”
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.
Managing biological diversity
Biological diversity is the variety of life and accompanying ecological processes (Off. Technol. Assess. 1987, Wilcove and Samson 1987, Keystone 1991). Conservation of biological diversity is a major environmental issue (Wilson 1988, Counc. Environ. Quality 1991). The health and future of the earth's ecological systems (Lubchenco et al. 1991), global climate change (Botkin 1990), and an ever-increasing rate in loss of species, communities, and ecological systems (Myers 1990) are among issues drawing biological diversity to the mainstream of conservation worldwide (Int. Union Conserv. Nat. and Nat. Resour. [IUCN] et al. 1991). The legal mandate for conserving biological diversity is now in place (Carlson 1988, Doremus 1991). More than 19 federal laws govern the use of biological resources in the United States (Rein 1991). The proposed National Biological Diversity Conservation and Environmental Research Act (H.R. 585 and S.58) notes the need for a national biological diversity policy, would create a national center for biological diversity research, and recommends a federal interagency strategy for ecosystem conservation. There are, however, hard choices ahead for the conservation of biological diversity, and biologists are grappling with how to set priorities in research and management (Roberts 1988). We sense disillusion among field biologists and managers relative to how to operationally approach the seemingly overwhelming charge of conserving biological diversity. Biologists also need to respond to critics like Hunt (1991) who suggest a tree farm has more biological diversity than an equal area of old-growth forest. At present, science has played only a minor role in the conservation of biological diversity (Weston 1992) with no unified approach available to evaluate strategies and programs that address the quality and quantity of biological diversity (Murphy 1990, Erwin 1992). Although actions to conserve biological diversity need to be clearly defined by viewing issues across biological, spatial, and temporal scales (Knopf and Smith 1992), natural resource managers find much conflicting information in the literature on strategies and programs for the conservation of biological diversity (Ehrlich 1992). Moreover, recommendations provided in much of the published information available for planning or decisions not only can be debated but may prove counterproductive if implemented. Current operational efforts beg for clearer focus on fundamental concepts central to daily decisions that impact native biological diversity. Recognizing that many biologists would provide different council and at the risk of oversimplification, we offer the following 4 topical issues as fundamental guidance to wise conservation action. These recommendations are based on our collective experiences working within conservation agencies since our original, collaborative essay (Samson and Knopf 1982). They are offered as initial, rather than authoritative, steps to better align research and management decisions with what we perceive as the critical issues in conserving biological diversity at the landscape and ecosystem levels of resolution.
Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
Flow resistance under conditions of intense gravel transport
A study of flow resistance was undertaken in a channelized reach of the North Fork Toutle River, downstream of Mount St. Helens, Washington. Hydraulic and sediment transport data were collected in flows with velocities up to 3 m/s and shear stresses up to 7 times the critical value needed for bed load transport. Details of the flow structure as revealed in vertical velocity profiles indicate that weak bed load transport over a plane gravel bed has little effect on flow resistance. The plane gravel bed persists up to stresses ∼3 times critical, at which point, irregular bed forms appear. Bed forms greatly increase flow resistance and cause velocity profiles to become distorted. The latter arises as an effect of flows becoming depth-limited as bed form amplitude increases. At very high rates of bed load transport, an upper stage plane bed appeared. Velocity profiles measured in these flows match the law of the wall closely, with the equivalent roughness being well represented by k s = 3 D 84 of the bed load. The effects noted here will be important in very large floods or in rivers that are not free to widen, such as those cut into bedrock.
Washington↗
A policy model to initiate environmental negotiations: Three hydropower workshops
How do I get started in natural resource negotiations? Natural resource managers often face difficult negotiations when they implement laws and policies regulating such resources as water, wildlife, wetlands, endangered species, and recreation. As a result of these negotiations, managers must establish rules, grant permits, or create management plans. The Legal‐Institutional Analysis Model (LIAM) was designed to assist managers in systematically analyzing the parties in natural resource negotiations and using that analysis to prepare for bargaining. The LIAM relies on the theory that organizations consistently employ behavioral roles. The model uses those roles to predict likely negotiation behavior. One practical use of the LIAM is when all parties to a negotiation conduct a workshop as a way to open the bargaining on a note of trust and mutual understanding. The process and results of three LIAM workshops designed to guide hydroelectric power licensing negotiations are presented. Our experience with these workshops led us to conclude that the LIAM can be an effective tool to begin a negotiation and that trust built through the workshops can help create a successful result.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Jou↗
USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change
This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.
Open-File Report↗
Seventy-five years of science—The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center
As of January 2010, 75 years have elapsed since Dr. Frederic Fish initiated the pioneering research program that would evolve into today’s Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC). Fish began his research working alone in the basement of the recently opened Fisheries Biological Laboratory on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington. WFRC’s research began under the aegis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ends its first 75 years as part of the U.S. Geological Survey with a staff of more than 150 biologists and support personnel and a heritage of fundamental research that has made important contributions to our understanding of the biology and ecology of the economically important fish and fish populations of the Nation. Although the current staff may rarely stop to think about it, WFRC’s antecedents extend many years into the past and are intimately involved with the history of fisheries conservation in the Western United States. Thus, WFRC Director Lyman Thorsteinson asked me to write the story of this laboratory “while there are still a few of you around who were here for some of the earlier years” to document the rich history and culture of WFRC by recognizing its many famous scientists and their achievements. This historyalso would help document WFRC’s research ‘footprint’ in the Western United States and its strategic directions. Center Director Thorsteinson concluded that WFRC’s heritage told by an emeritus scientist also would add a texture of legitimacy based on personal knowledge that will all-to-soon be lost to the WFRC and to the USGS. The WFRC story is important for the future as well as for historical reasons. It describes how we got to the place we are today by documenting the origin, original mission, and our evolving role in response to the constantly changing technical information requirements of new environmental legislation and organizational decision-making. The WFRC research program owes its existence to the policy requirements of Federal conservation legislation originating with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1933. The research program was shaped by laws enacted in subsequent years such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), National Environmental Policy Act (1973), Endangered Species Act (1974), and Northwest Power Planning Act (1980), to name only a few. The WFRC has not been constrained by direct management or regulatory responsibility for a particular fishery (such as providing sustainable catch limits data to a resource management structure). Thus, WFRC has been able to concentrate on scientific pursuits and information needs required by contemporary environmental legislation. Over the years, we have pioneered in several important areas of fisheries research including the diagnoses and control of diseases in economically important fish, effects of environmental alterations on the physiological quality and survival of Pacific salmon released from federal mitigation hatcheries, applications in biotelemetry, and the bioenergetics of predator-prey interactions in the Columbia River. The WFRC of today is a widely distributed organization in the Western United States. Knowledge of the historical connections and accomplishments of our predecessors is important beyond the sense of pride and unity it instills in the WFRC family of today. For example, a discerning reader will note the evolution of WFRC’s research from a single disciplinary focus (early era—hatchery disease problems), to multiple disciplines (middle to late era—species, populations, habitats; threatened and endangered species), to the present era (multidisciplinary and with increasing process focus). For the benefit of the current WFRC staff, more emphasis has been placed on the early years rather than on the present day because people are quite naturally more familiar with the recent past than with the research done during the first decades of WFRC’s existence. By every rational measure, the WFRC has evolved into a fisheries research organization well positioned to provide the biological information needed to support the continued conservation and management of our Nation’s living aquatic natural resources. The high standard of excellence that connects WFRC’s past to our present research program provides a firm foundation on which to base the work yet to be done. In another 75 years, WFRC will undoubtedly be a very different place than it is today, but its evolution will be forever rooted in the story of the research and of the people related here. More about the diverse fisheries research projects WFRC scientists are conducting today is available at WFRC’s website: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.
Washington↗
Discharge and dissolved-solids characteristics of Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork, Wyoming, April 2018 through September 2019
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum was formed in 1973 to coordinate salinity control efforts among the States in the Colorado River Basin, including Wyoming. The Colorado River Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–320) authorized “the construction, operation, and maintenance of certain works in the Colorado River Basin to control the salinity of water delivered to users in the United States and Mexico.” Water-quality standards for salinity in the lower Colorado River Basin were adopted in 1975. To help meet these standards, the Bureau of Reclamation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and States within the Colorado River Basin have implemented salinity control projects that focus on reducing salt loading associated with irrigated agriculture by improving water delivery systems and water management practices. The term salinity is synonymous with dissolved solids in this report. The Bureau of Reclamation, in conjunction with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, was interested in determining the contribution of dissolved solids from Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork to the Colorado River and initiated a study of Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork in 2018. In early 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey installed a streamgage at the most downstream location on the Blacks Fork, upstream from the convergence with Smiths Fork, to characterize the stream. The Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork, near Lyman, Wyoming, streamgage (U.S. Geological Survey identifier 09219200) was operated from April 4, 2018, through September 30, 2019, collecting continuous stream stage and specific-conductance data, from which continuous discharge, dissolved-solids concentrations, and dissolved-solids loads were calculated. Seven sites were selected on Blacks Fork and a tributary to describe a snapshot of the discharge and dissolved-solids characteristics. These sites were sampled during July, August, and September 2018 and June, July, August, and September 2019 report. Discharge at the Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork, near Lyman, Wyo., streamgage (09219200) from April through September in 2018 was lower and less variable than during the same period in 2019. The mean daily (mean of the daily means) discharge during those 6 months in 2018 (15.1 cubic feet per second [ft 3 /s]) was about one-tenth of the discharge during the same period in 2019 (152 ft 3 /s). The cumulative monthly discharge during April through September in 2018 was 5,360 acre-feet, about one-tenth of the discharge during the same period in 2019 which was 54,700 acre-feet. Similar differences in discharge between the 2018 and 2019 periods also are noted at other Blacks Fork streamgages in the area. Continuous specific conductance data and the statistical relation between specific conductance and dissolved-solids concentrations were used to calculate the daily mean dissolved-solids concentrations. Dissolved solids often have an inverse relation with discharge because higher discharges typically have a diluting effect that lowers the dissolved-solids concentrations. In general, when discharges at the Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork streamgage (09219200) are higher, dissolved-solids concentrations are generally lower. However, the high dissolved-solids concentrations that are measured during high discharges indicate that the system has natural variability and the dissolved-solids concentrations are determined by more factors than just discharge. The mean daily dissolved-solids concentration during April through September 2018 was 1,630 milligrams per liter and during the same period in 2019 was 1,100 milligrams per liter. Dissolved-solids loads were calculated as the product of the discharge and dissolved-solids concentration. The daily mean dissolved-solids loads during 2018 were typically lower than during 2019. This result is primarily because the discharge was much lower in 2018 than in 2019. Therefore, although the daily mean dissolved-solids concentrations tended to be higher in 2018, the substantially higher discharges in 2019 had more of an effect on the dissolved-solids loads than the dissolved-solids concentrations. The cumulative dissolved-solids load at the Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork, near Lyman, Wyo., streamgage (09219200) during the 18-month study was 81,200 tons, with a mean daily load of 149 tons per day. During the 6-month period from April through September 2018, the cumulative dissolved-solids load at the streamgage was estimated to be 8,740 tons and, during the same 6 months in 2019, the cumulative dissolved-solids load was estimated to be 60,900 tons. During the fall and winter between the two periods, the cumulative dissolved-solids load was 11,600 tons. Discharge and dissolved-solids concentrations from samples collected during the synoptic sampling events were highly variable among most sites during most synoptic sampling events and also highly variable at most sites among different sampling events. The two sites upstream from the tributary input from Threemile Creek had lower dissolved-solids concentrations than sites including and downstream from the tributary. Sites including and downstream from the tributary had similar values and variability of dissolved-solids loads, with the exception of the farthest downstream site at the Blacks Fork above Smiths Fork, near Lyman, Wyo., streamgage (09219200) that tended to have larger dissolved-solids loads and higher variability among synoptic sampling events.
Scientific Investigations Report↗
Use of U.S. Geological Survey earth-science products by selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California
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.
California↗