Geology topics

Catherine Cullinane Thomas

Publications and source records attributed to Catherine Cullinane Thomas.

30 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2017

2016 National Park visitor spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states, and the Nation

The National Park Service (NPS) manages the Nation’s most iconic destinations that attract millions of visitors from across the Nation and around the world. Trip-related spending by NPS visitors generates and supports a considerable amount of economic activity within park gateway communities. This economic effects analysis measures how NPS visitor spending cycles through local economies, generating business sales and supporting jobs and income. In 2016, the National Park System received an estimated 330,971,689 recreation visits. Visitors to National Parks spent an estimated \$18.4 billion in local gateway regions (defined as communities within 60 miles of a park). The contribution of this spending to the national economy was 318 thousand jobs, \$12.0 billion in labor income, \$19.9 billion in value added, and \$34.9 billion in economic output. The lodging sector saw the highest direct contributions with \$5.7 billion in economic output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally. The sector with the next greatest direct contributions was the restaurants and bars sector, with \$3.7 billion in economic output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally.Results from the Visitor Spending Effects report series are available online via an interactive tool. Users can view year-by-year trend data and explore current year visitor spending, jobs, labor income, value added, and economic output effects by sector for national, state, and local economies. This interactive tool is available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm.

Natural Resource Report↗

USGS2016

Estimating the economic impacts of ecosystem restoration—Methods and case studies

Federal investments in ecosystem restoration projects protect Federal trusts, ensure public health and safety, and preserve and enhance essential ecosystem services. These investments also generate business activity and create jobs. It is important for restoration practitioners to be able to quantify the economic impacts of individual restoration projects in order to communicate the contribution of these activities to local and national stakeholders. This report provides a detailed description of the methods used to estimate economic impacts of case study projects and also provides suggestions, lessons learned, and trade-offs between potential analysis methods. This analysis estimates the economic impacts of a wide variety of ecosystem restoration projects associated with U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) lands and programs. Specifically, the report provides estimated economic impacts for 21 DOI restoration projects associated with Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration cases and Bureau of Land Management lands. The study indicates that ecosystem restoration projects provide meaningful economic contributions to local economies and to broader regional and national economies, and, based on the case studies, we estimate that between 13 and 32 job-years 4 and between $2.2 and $3.4 million in total economic output 5 are contributed to the U.S. economy for every $1 million invested in ecosystem restoration. These results highlight the magnitude and variability in the economic impacts associated with ecosystem restoration projects and demonstrate how investments in ecosystem restoration support jobs and livelihoods, small businesses, and rural economies. In addition to providing improved information on the economic impacts of restoration, the case studies included with this report highlight DOI restoration efforts and tell personalized stories about each project and the communities that are positively affected by restoration activities. Individual case studies are provided in appendix 1 of this report and are available from an online database at https://www.fort.usgs.gov/economic-impacts-restoration .

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Benefits and limitations of using decision analytic tools to assess uncertainty and prioritize Landscape Conservation Cooperative information needs

The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are a network of partnerships throughout North America that are tasked with integrating science and management to support more effective delivery of conservation at a landscape scale. In order to achieve this integration, some LCCs have adopted the approach of providing their partners with better scientific information in an effort to facilitate more effective and coordinated conservation decisions. Taking this approach has led many LCCs to begin funding research to provide the information for improved decision making. To ensure that funding goes to research projects with the highest likelihood of leading to more integrated broad scale conservation, some LCCs have also developed approaches for prioritizing which information needs will be of most benefit to their partnerships. We describe two case studies in which decision analytic tools were used to quantitatively assess the relative importance of information for decisions made by partners in the Plains and Prairie Potholes LCC. The results of the case studies point toward a few valuable lessons in terms of using these tools with LCCs. Decision analytic tools tend to help shift focus away from research oriented discussions and toward discussions about how information is used in making better decisions. However, many technical experts do not have enough knowledge about decision making contexts to fully inform the latter type of discussion. When assessed in the right decision context, however, decision analyses can point out where uncertainties actually affect optimal decisions and where they do not. This helps technical experts understand that not all research is valuable in improving decision making. But perhaps most importantly, our results suggest that decision analytic tools may be more useful for LCCs as way of developing integrated objectives for coordinating partner decisions across the landscape, rather than simply ranking research priorities.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS2015

Simulating long-term effectiveness and efficiency of management scenarios for an invasive grass

Resource managers are often faced with trade-offs in allocating limited resources to manage plant invasions. These decisions must often be made with uncertainty about the location of infestations, their rate of spread and effectiveness of management actions. Landscape level simulation tools such as state-and-transition simulation models (STSMs) can be used to evaluate the potential long term consequences of alternative management strategies and help identify those strategies that make efficient use of resources. We analyzed alternative management scenarios for African buffelgrass ( Pennisetum ciliare syn. Cenchrus ciliaris ) at Ironwood Forest National Monument, Arizona using a spatially explicit STSM implemented in the Tool for Exploratory Landscape Scenario Analyses (TELSA). Buffelgrass is an invasive grass that is spreading rapidly in the Sonoran Desert, affecting multiple habitats and jurisdictions. This invasion is creating a novel fire risk and transforming natural ecosystems. The model used in this application incorporates buffelgrass dispersal and establishment and management actions and effectiveness including inventory, treatment and post-treatment maintenance. We simulated 11 alternative scenarios developed in consultation with buffelgrass managers and other stakeholders. The scenarios vary according to the total budget allocated for management and the allocation of that budget between different kinds of management actions. Scenario results suggest that to achieve an actual reduction and stabilization of buffelgrass populations, management unconstrained by fiscal restrictions and across all jurisdictions and private lands is required; without broad and aggressive management, buffelgrass populations are expected to increase over time. However, results also suggest that large upfront investments can achieve control results that require relatively minimal spending in the future. Investing the necessary funds upfront to control the invasion results in the most efficient use of resources to achieve lowest invaded acreage in the long-term.

Arizona↗

USGS2015

2014 National Park visitor spending effects: economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation

The National Park System covers more than 84 million acres and is comprised of more than 401 sites across the Nation. These lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS) serve as recreational destinations for visitors from across the Nation and around the world. On vacations or on day trips, NPS visitors spend time and money in the gateway communities surrounding NPS sites. Spending by NPS visitors generates and supports a considerable amount of economic activity within park gateway economies. The NPS has been measuring and reporting visitor spending and economic effects for the past 25 years. The 2012 analysis marked a major revision to the NPS visitor spending effects analyses, with the development of the Visitor Spending Effects model (VSE model) which replaced the previous Money Generation Model (see Cullinane Thomas et al. (2014) for a description of how the VSE model differs from the previous model). This report provides updated VSE estimates associated with 2014 NPS visitation. System-wide visitation estimates in 2014 increased by 7% (or 19.2 million visits) compared to 2013 (Ziesler, 2015). Visitation in 2014 rebounded from a 2013 decline that included a 16-day government shutdown and many park closures for repairs after Superstorm Sandy hit the Northeast in late 2012. The re-opening of the Washington Monument, some 21 months after it was rocked by an earthquake and repaired, also added to 2014 visitation numbers. Additionally, several national parks saw record-breaking visitation in 2014, including Joshua Tree, Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton and Glacier national parks. This report begins by presenting an overview of economic effects analyses, followed by details about the data and methods used for this analysis and 2014 model updates. Estimates of NPS visitor spending in 2014 and resulting economic effects at the local, state, regional, and national levels are then presented. The report concludes with a description of current data limitations. Park-level spending and economic effects estimates are included in the appendix. New this year, results from the Visitor Spending Effects report series are available online via an interactive tool. Users can explore current year visitor spending, jobs, labor income, value added, and output effects by sector for national, state, and local economies. This interactive tool is available via the NPS Social Science Program webpage at http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/economics.cfm.

Natural Resource Report↗

USGS2015

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge: Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement

The Connecticut River is treasured by all for its majesty and significance in supporting life along its winding 410-mile passage through urban and rural communities in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Working with our partners, we are inspired to protect and enhance the natural and cultural richness throughout the watershed, especially on lands and waters entrusted to our agency as the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Together with our partners, we design, support, and implement strategic conservation actions across the watershed, and communicate conservation needs and successes through extensive outreach and education programs. On refuge lands, we offer visitor programs and activities that promote an appreciation of the Connecticut River watershed as an intact, interconnected, and healthy ecosystem. Visitors respond to this greater awareness by becoming active stewards of the watershed’s natural and cultural resources. Our actions exemplify the Service’s vital role in conserving the Connecticut River watershed and the refuge’s important contribution to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Vermont↗

USGS2015

Draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement - Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge

The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Complex, consisting of some of the newer properties in the National Wildlife Refuge System, is a work in progress. Offering unique assets to surrounding communities, these lands promise to become some of the premier urban wildlife refuges in the country. At the heart of the refuge complex is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: 16,000 acres of shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie that is home to bison, bald eagles, migratory songbirds, prairie dogs, and much more—all within the Denver Metropolitan area. This comprehensive conservation plan will be the first in the country designed to begin implementing the Refuge System’s new Urban Refuge Initiative. To accomplish this, we analyzed a wide range of options on how best to support up to one million visitors per year without compromising our principal purposes to protect and preserve fish and wildlife and their habitats.

Colorado↗

USGS2014

2012 National Park visitor spending effects: economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation

The National Park Service (NPS) manages the nation's most iconic destinations that attract millions of visitors from across the nation and around the world. Trip-related spending by NPS visitors generates and supports a considerable amount of economic activity within park gateway communities. This economic effects analysis measures how NPS visitor spending cycles through local economies, generating business sales and supporting jobs and income. In 2012, the National Park System received over 282 million recreation visits. NPS visitors spent $14.7 billion in local gateway regions (defined as communities within 60 miles of a park). The contribution of this spending to the national economy was 243 thousand jobs, $9.3 billion in labor income, $15.8 billion in value added, and $26.8 billion in output. The lodging sector saw the highest direct contributions with more than 40 thousand jobs and $4.5 billion in output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally. The sector with the next greatest direct contributions was restaurants and bars, with 51 thousand jobs and $3 billion in output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally. This 2012 analysis marks a major revision to the NPS visitor spending effects analyses, with the development of a new visitor spending effects model (VSE model) that replaces the former Money Generation Model (MGM2). Many of the hallmarks and processes of the MGM2 model are preserved in the new VSE model, but the new model makes significant strides in improving the accuracy and transparency of the analysis. Because of this change from the MGM2 model to the VSE model, estimates from this year’s analysis are not directly comparable to previous analyses.

Natural Resource Report↗

USGS2014

Collaborative socioeconomic tool development to address management and planning needs

Public lands and resources managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and other land management agencies provide a wide range of social and economic benefits to both nearby local communities and society as a whole, ranging from job creation, to access to unique recreational opportunities, to subsistence and tribal uses of the land. Over the years, there has been an increased need to identify and analyze the socioeconomic effects of the public’s use of NPS lands and resources, and the wide range of NPS land management decisions. This need stems from laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), increased litigation and appeals on NPS management decisions, as well as an overall need to demonstrate how parks benefit communities and the American public. To address these needs, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NPS have an ongoing partnership to collaboratively develop socioeconomic tools to support planning needs and resource management. This article discusses two such tools. The first, Assessing Socioeconomic Planning Needs (ASPN), was developed to help NPS planners and managers identify key social and economic issues that can arise as a result of land management actions. The second tool, the Visitor Spending Effects (VSE) model, provides a specific example of a type of analysis that may be recommended by ASPN. The remainder of this article discusses the development, main features, and plans for future versions and applications of both ASPN and the VSE.

George Wright Society Forum↗

USGS2013

Restoring a stream, restoring a community-urban watershed restoration fosters community improvement

The Anacostia Watershed lies within the Chesapeake By drainage basin, and is one of the most urban watersheds within the basin. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the watershed spans over 175 square miles between Maryland and the District of Columbia and is considered by many to be one of the most degraded waterways in the United States. Watts Branch is a tributary stream of the Anacostia River, and flows into the Potomac River which eventually empties into the Chesapeake Bay

Maryl↗

USGS2013

Land-use change, economics, and rural well-being in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States

This fact sheet highlights findings included in a comprehensive new report (see USGS Professional Paper 1800) which investigated land-use change, economic characteristics, and rural community well-being in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States. Once one of the largest grassland-wetlands ecosystems on earth, the North American prairie has experienced extensive conversion to cultivated agriculture, with farming becoming the dominant land use in the region over the last century. Both perennial habitat lands and agricultural croplands retain importance economically, socially, and culturally. Greatly increased oil and gas development in recent years brought rises in employment and income but also stressed infrastructure, cost of living, and crime rates. Research described in these reports focuses on land-use dynamics and illuminates how economic variables and rural development in the Prairie Pothole Region might be influenced as land uses change.

Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, ↗

USGS2012

Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan

The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in the Bear River Watershed, a vast basin covering fourteen counties across three states. Located in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho, the watershed spans roughly 7,500 squares miles: 1,500 squares miles in Wyoming; 2,700 squares miles in Idaho; and 3,300 squares miles in Utah (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004). Three National Wildlife Refuges are currently contained within the boundary of the BRWCA: the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah, the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Idaho, and the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming. In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a Preliminary Project Proposal and identified the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area as having high-value wildlife habitat. This finding initiated the Land Protection Planning process, which is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study land conservation opportunities including adding lands to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to include part of the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in the Refuge System by acquiring up to 920,000 acres of conservation easements from willing landowners to maintain landscape integrity and habitat connectivity in the region. The analysis described in this report provides a profile of the social and economic conditions in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area and addresses social and economic questions and concerns raised during public involvement in the Land Protection Planning process.

Wyoming;Utah;Idaho↗