Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Adrian H. Farmer

Publications and source records attributed to Adrian H. Farmer.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2008

A Regional Approach to Wildlife Monitoring Related to Energy Exploration and Development in Colorado

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is currently developing a National Monitoring Strategy that will guide efforts to create an efficient and effective process for monitoring land health by BLM. To inform the ongoing development of the national strategy, BLM selected two States (Colorado, Alaska) to serve as focal areas on which to base a flexible framework for developing monitoring programs that evaluate wildlife responses to energy development. We developed a three-phase monitoring plan to serve as a template and applied it to the design of a monitoring program for the Colorado focal area (White River and Glenwood Springs Field Offices of the BLM). Phase I is a synthesis and assessment of current conditions that capitalizes on existing but under used data sources. A key component is the use of existing habitat and landscape models to evaluate the cumulative effects of surface disturbance. Phase II is the data collection process that uses information provided in Phase I to refine management objectives and provide a linkage to management decisions. The linkage is established through targeted monitoring, adaptive management, and research. Phase III establishes priorities and strategies for regional and national monitoring, and facilitates coordination among other land management agencies and organizations. The three phases are designed to be flexible and complementary. The monitoring plan guides an iterative process that is performed incrementally, beginning with the highest-priority species and management issues, while building on lessons learned and coordination among administrative levels. The activities associated with each phase can be repeated or updated as new information, data, or tools become available. This allows the development of a monitoring program that expands gradually and allows for rapid implementation. A demonstration application of the three-phase monitoring plan was conducted for a study area encompassing five BLM field offices in Colorado: White River, Glenwood Springs, Kremmling, Grand Junction, and Little Snake. The overall study area was selected to encompass the primary distribution of sagebrush and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Colorado and to provide a larger context for evaluating priority management issues of the White River and Glenwood Springs Field Offices. Within the study area, we selected an additional scale of analysis: the Roan Plateau, an area of increased energy development. We focused our demonstration project on the primary objectives identified by the BLM and other stakeholders: (1) How do we evaluate the cumulative effects of energy development and mitigation activities on species of management interest or concern? (2) How can cumulative effects, including direct and indirect effects, be quantified relative to natural variation? (3) How can we implement compliance and effectiveness monitoring to determine whether lease stipulations are met and restoration/mitigation goals are achieved? We targeted greater sage-grouse because this species was identified as a monitoring priority for the White River Field Office. We also evaluated landscape-level indices to address fragmentation resulting from surface disturbance. The primary purpose of this exercise was to highlight the types of analyses and approaches that could be used to evaluate energy development in an application of the three-phase framework. We provide examples of Phase I products that can be used to guide the refinement of management objectives, development of adaptive management and research frameworks, and planning activities in Phase II. Finally, we report on the BLM's National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy as an example of Phase III activities. The development of an effective monitoring program is a daunting task, and will be difficult to implement by the BLM independently due to the current work load of staff. However, the scientific expertise and experience for developing cr

Open-File Report↗
USGS2005

Evaluation of models and data for assessing whooping crane habitat in the central Platte River, Nebraska

The primary objectives of this evaluation were to improve the performance of the Whooping Crane Habitat Suitability model (C4R) used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for defining the relationship between river discharge and habitat availability, and to assist the Service in implementing improved model(s) with existing hydraulic files. The C4R habitat model is applied at the scale of individual river cross-sections, but the model outputs are scaledup to larger reaches of the river using a decision support “model” comprised of other data and procedures. Hence, the validity of the habitat model depends at least partially on how its outputs are incorporated into this larger context. For that reason, we also evaluated other procedures including the PHABSIM data files, the FORTRAN computer programs used to implement the model, and other parameters used to simulate the relationship between river flows and the availability of Whooping Crane roosting habitat along more than 100 miles of heterogeneous river channels. An equally important objective of this report was to fully document these related procedures as well as the model and evaluation results so that interested parties could readily understand the technical basis for the Service’s recommendations.

Nebraska↗
USGS2004

Summary of studies supporting cumulative effects analysis of upper Yellowstone River channel modifications

During the last several decades, portions of the upper Yellowstone River have been modified for flood control and erosion prevention. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for administration of a permit program for evaluating construction activities affecting rivers, streams, and wetlands. The Corps regulates activities under the authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Since assumption of jurisdiction in the mid-1970’s, the Corps has processed a total of 156 permit actions for the upper Yellowstone River. Over two-thirds of the permit actions occurred during or after two consecutive large floods during 1996 and 1997. In response to concern regarding the potential environmental and ecological consequences of channel modification, the Corps, in conjunction with State and local government agencies, initiated a series of scientific studies to better understand the effects of channel modification in the upper Yellowstone River (Figure 1). These included preparation of wetland and riparian inventory maps (Bon, 2001); hydraulic modeling and flood-plain delineation; watershed land-cover assessment (Pick and Potter, 2003); historic bottomland use analysis (Brelsford and others, 2003); analysis of channel modification effects on fish habitat (Bowen and others, 2003); comparison of juvenile salmonid use of modified and unmodified habitats (Zale and Rider, 2003); analysis of riparian vegetation and flood-plain turnover (Merigliano and Polzin, 2003); study of the relations between riparian habitat and bird communities (Hansen and others, 2003); analyses of geomorphology and historical channel changes (Dalby and Robinson, 2003); socioeconomic assessment (BBC Research and Consulting, 2002); and sediment transport investigations and modeling (Holnbeck, 2003). This report is a summary of results from the individual scientific studies as they bear on future programmatic cumulative effects analyses of channel modification of the upper Yellowstone River. We do not attempt a formal, cumulative impact assessment in the sense of evaluating alternatives or future scenarios. The first section presents major findings of the resource studies in terms of temporal comparisons, spatial comparisons, and causal relations. In this section, we present a series of conceptual models or flow diagrams of the major causal pathways of cumulative impacts from channel modification. These represent major pathways of potential impact based on knowledge from other rivers, concerns expressed about the upper Yellowstone, and results from the scientific studies. These diagrams serve to focus interpretation of study results as either supporting or not supporting the importance and magnitude of particular causal relations and to identify key linking variables appearing in multiple causal pathways. These key variables that connect channel modification actions to multiple, valued environmental attributes can serve as the foundation for both projecting and monitoring future responses of the system. A section on analytical realities outlines some of the limitations of projecting cumulative impacts from channel modification of the upper Yellowstone River on meaningful spatial and temporal scales and some of the difficulties of interpreting results from studies conducted shortly after two extreme floods and substantial increases in channel modification. A section on classification describes the two primary geomorphic classification systems of the upper Yellowstone River used in the various individual resource studies. Each of these systems has been valuable in supporting field sampling and expressing results concerning patterns of variation. Their integration or revision into a classification system to achieve some new purpose, such as a regulatory program or monitoring system, will depend on a crisp articulation of riverine management or regulatory objectives. A section on key variables identifies those that are central to the causal pathways connecting channel modification to impacts and provides a rationale for key variables as an alternative to other tools such as Proper Functioning Condition (Barrett and others, 1993), Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr, 1981), or the Synoptic Approach (Liebowitz and others, 1992). This section also explains relations among key variable to Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessment procedures (Hauer and Smith, 1998; Hauer and others, 2001) and outlines how these 2 variables might be monitored to track cumulative impacts. Examples of how selected key variables can be quantified using Geographic Information System data sets developed from the resource studies are presented for one reach. The largest portion of the document is an Appendix that summarizes each of the individual scientific studies in terms of scope and methods, findings, principal variables, and metrics used in the study or suggested by the study results, and important needs for further study.

Montana↗
USGS1993

A technique for evaluating black-footed ferret habitat

In this paper, we provide a model and step-by-step procedures for rating a prairie dog ( Cynomys sp.) complex for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets ( Mustela nigripes ). An important factor in the model is an estimate of the number of black-footed ferret families a prairie dog complex can support for a year; thus, the procedures prescribe how to estimate the size of a prairie dog complex and the density of prairie dogs. Other attributes of the model are qualitative: arrangement of colonies, potential for plague and canine distemper, potential for prairie dog expansion, abundance of predators, future resource conflicts and ownership stability, and public and landowner attitudes about prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets. Because of the qualitative attributes in the model, a team approach is recommended for ranking complexes of prairie dogs for black-footed ferret reintroduction.

Book↗
USGS1987

Modeling potential impacts of the Garrison Diversion Unit project on Sand Lake and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuges: a feasibility analysis

The Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program was authorized in 1965, with the purpose of diverting Missouri River water to the James River for irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and flood control. The project was reauthorized in 1986, with the specification that comprehensive studies be conducted to address a variety of issues. One of these ongoing studies addresses potential impacts of GDU construction and operation on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system, including Arrowwood and Sand Lake Refuges (the Refuges) on the James River. A number of concerns at these Refuges have been identified; the primary concerns addressed in this report include increased winter return flows, which would limit control of rough fish; increased turbidity during project construction, which would decrease production of sago pondweed; and increased water level fluctuations in the late spring and early summer, which would destroy the nests of some over-water nesting birds. The facilitated workshop described in this report was conducted February 18-20, 1987, under the joint sponsorship of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. The primary objectives of the workshop were to evaluate the feasibility of using simulation modeling techniques to estimate GDU impacts on Arrowwood and Sand Lake Refuges and to suggest enhancements to the James River Refuge monitoring program. The workshop was structured around the formulation of four submodels: a Hydrology and Water Quality submodel to simulate changes in Refuge pool elevations, turnover rates, and water quality parameters (e.g., total dissolved solids, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, water temperature, pesticides) due to GDU construction and operation; a Vegetation submodel to simulate concomitant changes in wetland communities (e.g., sago pondweed, wet meadows, deep and shallow marsh); a Fish submodel to estimate changes in abundance or biomass of rough fish (carp, buffalo) and sportfish (northern pike); and a Wildlife submodel to calculate indices of waterfowl abundance or habitat suitability (e.g., for mallards, western grebes, migrating diving ducks, white-faced ibis, egrets, over-water nesters). Submodels considered weekly to monthly changes in pools within a Refuge over a time horizon of 30-50 years. Based on workshop discussions and past experience with impact analysis modeling, a phased modeling approach was recommended for the James River Refuges analysis. The first phase would involve two modeling efforts. The existing Sand Lake hydrology model, and a similar one developed for Arrowwood NWR, would be validated and used to predict changes on pool elevations and winter inflows to each pool for a variety of GDU alternatives. Outputs from simulations would then be evaluated in terms of potential fish and wildlife impacts. For example, the models could generate indices comparing the magnitude and timing of winter inflows for pre- and postproject conditions; fisheries biologists could then use these indices to better quantify their concerns relative to potential changes in the frequency of rough-fish control. The other modeling effort in the first phase would involve developing a sago pondweed growth model to integrate Refuge monitoring data and existing literature and perhaps to address some questions concerning turbidity impacts. A second phase of simulation modeling would be undertaken only if the initial analyses of hydrologic outputs indicated significant potential problems and if monitoring and research projects had clarified some of the biological and physical processes that cannot be modeled reliably at the present time (e.g., resuspension of sediments by carp, immigration and winter mortality of fish, loss of waterfowl nests due to wave action). The second phase would attempt to develop an integrated impact assessment model. In order to address some of the biological and physical processes that presently are not well understood, a number of studies and enhancements to the Refuge monitoring program were suggested. The Hydrology and Water Quality workgroup recommended increasing turbidity and dissolved oxygen sampling, dropping expensive analysis of some trace elements, adding more pesticide analysis (including some biological monitoring), and developing better area-capacity data for the Sand Lake hydrology model. The Vegetation workgroup suggested expanding the number of monitoring stations, monitoring photosynthetically active radiation by depth, and modifying the biomass sampling procedure and schedule. Also suggested were additional analyses of existing Refuge monitoring data and additional field studies concerning sago growth under a variety of environmental conditions and effects of rough fish density on sago. A careful examination of Refuge narrative reports was recommended by the Fish workgroup to characterize conditions that led to various rates of winter-kill. Monitoring enhancement related to a better understanding of fish population dynamics included increasing dissolved oxygen monitoring, continuing present monitoring of fish movement upstream from Jamestown Reservoir into Arrowwood NWR, initiating similar efforts for upstream movement into Sand Lake NWR and downstream movements into both Refuges, and augmenting the present gillnetting program (or replacing it) with sampling for population and age/size structure estimates. The Wildlife workgroup suggested estimating the relative density of mallard nests in over-water and wet meadow nesting areas, estimating the number of western grebe nests lost due to wave action, delineating wet meadows on the Refuge vegetation maps, estimating annual tuber consumption by birds, and monitoring insect/macroinvertebrate abundance. The workgroup also suggested research studies to better understand the relationships between food supplies and the growth and survival of ducklings and young grebes. the workshop discussions also helped identify some suggestions for modifying project features that, if feasible from an engineering and operational standpoint, would reduce impacts on Refuge lands. These suggestions included: designing drains with control structures or small "reregulation" reservoirs to hold winter return flows that might adversely affect rough fish control, spreading construction activities over a number of years to reduce potential impacts of turbidity on sago pondweed in any single year, scheduling construction to occur after the spring sprouting and elongation growth stages to reduce impacts on sago pondweed, and installing "quick acting" control structures at Arrowwood NWR to reduce pool level fluctuations that might destroy nests of some over-water nesting waterfowl.

Report↗
USGS1985

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

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

Report↗
USGS1983

Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood duck

A review and synthesis of existing information were used to develop models for breeding and wintering habitats for the wood duck (Aix sponsa). The models are scaled to produce indices of habitat suitability between 0 (unsuitable habitat) and 1 (optimally suitable habitat). Habitat suitability indices are designed for use with Habitat Evaluation Procedures previously developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

FWS/OBS↗
USGS1982

Habitat models for land-use planning: assumptions and strategies for development

Wildlife managers have long recognized that management goals must be constrained by the availability and suitability of habitat. This recognition, combined with ever increasing land development pressures, has resulted in environmental legislation emphasizing systematic approaches to collection and analysis of habitat information. Wildlife planners have responded with a variety of approached to the development of models that quantify habitat requirements. The use of habitat models in wildlife management is certainly not a new concept. Early models attempted to relate habitat quality and quantity as defined by various life requisites (Trippensee 1948). Conceptually, these early approaches are identical to many contemporary efforts directed at modeling habitat. This paper has two objectives related to contemporary habitat modeling approaches. The first objective is to characterize the assumptions and limitations inherent to operational habitat models. Various approaches to habitat modeling, some of which will be discussed at this conference, are described in their own terminology-which tends to obscure the fact that they have common ideals and are subject to the same sets of limitations. The second objective of this paper is to describe a strategy for development of habitat models consistent with these potential limitations. There seems to be two divergent perspectives on operational habitat models. The first is an ideal perspective, which views operational habitat models with skepticism because the current state of habitat knowledge is limited. The second is a pragmatic perspective, which recognizes that available habitat information, no matter how incomplete, can be used to improve the credibility of a land-use decision. The strategy outlined in this paper is directed toward the latter perspective but may help to bridge the gap between the pragmatic and ideal.

Book↗