Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Planning”

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.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗
USGS2022

Species distributions and the recognition of risk in restoration planning: A case study of salmonid fishes

One of the risks faced by habitat restoration practitioners is whether habitats included in restoration planning will be used by the target species or, conversely, whether habitats excluded from restoration planning would have benefited the target species. With the goal of providing a quantitative decision-making approach that represented varying levels of risk tolerance, we used multiple probability decision thresholds (PDT) to predict the range of occurrence for three anadromous fishes ( Oncorhynchus spp.) in a watershed in southwestern Washington, USA. For each species, we compared the predicted range of occurrence to the distribution used for restoration planning and quantified the amount of habitat blocked by anthropogenic barriers. Coho salmon ( O. kisutch ) had the broadest predicted range of occurrence (3061.6–6357.9 km; 0.75–0.25 PDT), followed by steelhead trout ( O. mykiss ; 1828.8–2836.8 km) and chum salmon ( O. keta ; 1373.9–1629.1 km). For each species, the predicted range of occurrence was similar or greater than the distribution used for restoration planning, suggesting that the current plan may exclude habitats that would benefit each species. Coho salmon had the greatest percentage of habitat blocked by anthropogenic barriers, followed by steelhead trout and chum salmon, respectively. Modeling species distributions at multiple risk-tolerance scenarios acknowledges uncertainty in restoration planning and allows practitioners to weigh the ecological benefits and budgetary constraints when considering locations for restoration. To effectively communicate restoration science to support practitioners in decision-making, we developed an R Shiny application online user interface available at: https://shiny.wdfw-fish.us/ChehalisRiverBasinSalmonidRangeOfOccurence/ .

Washington↗
USGS2011

Improving our legacy: Incorporation of adaptive management into state wildlife action plans

The loss of biodiversity is a mounting concern, but despite numerous attempts there are few large scale conservation efforts that have proven successful in reversing current declines. Given the challenge of biodiversity conservation, there is a need to develop strategic conservation plans that address species declines even with the inherent uncertainty in managing multiple species in complex environments. In 2002, the State Wildlife Grant program was initiated to fulfill this need, and while not explicitly outlined by Congress follows the fundamental premise of adaptive management, 'Learning by doing'. When action is necessary, but basic biological information and an understanding of appropriate management strategies are lacking, adaptive management enables managers to be proactive in spite of uncertainty. However, regardless of the strengths of adaptive management, the development of an effective adaptive management framework is challenging. In a review of 53 State Wildlife Action Plans, I found a keen awareness by planners that adaptive management was an effective method for addressing biodiversity conservation, but the development and incorporation of explicit adaptive management approaches within each plan remained elusive. Only ???25% of the plans included a framework for how adaptive management would be implemented at the project level within their state. There was, however, considerable support across plans for further development and implementation of adaptive management. By furthering the incorporation of adaptive management principles in conservation plans and explicitly outlining the decision making process, states will be poised to meet the pending challenges to biodiversity conservation. ?? 2010 .

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2013

Wildlife connectivity approaches and best practices in U.S. state wildlife action plans

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large-scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide-ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide-ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state-specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community-wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2005

Coordinating NEHRP Post-Earthquake Investigations: Exercising the Plan

Three exercises of The Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-Earthquake Investigations were developed and implemented in late 2003 and early 2004 in order to test the Plan itself via realistic scenarios, and for the NEHRP agencies to learn how to coordinate post-earthquake investigations. The exercises were selected to cover a range of seismic activity and consequences, and were based on scenario events: (1) a Hayward Fault Mw 7 event without foreshocks; (2) a New Madrid seismic zone Mw 7 event with foreshocks, and (3) a Puerto Rico Mw 8 subduction event on the Puerto Rican Trench accompanied by a tsunami affecting the eastern seaboard of the United States. Each exercise consisted of a four-hour telephone conference call with a Web-based electronic link and post-exercise evaluations fed back to participants. Evaluation of the exercises found the Plan to be adequate, with implementation of the Plan by the NEHRP agencies improving with each exercise. Based on the exercises, recommendations were provided that a Plan coordinator should be designated within USGS, an annual exercise of the Plan should be conducted in different regions of the United States, a permanent NEHRP electronic link should be created, and coordination of post-earthquake data collection, preservation, archiving, and dissemination should be greatly improved.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2015

Targeting climate diversity in conservation planning to build resilience to climate change

Climate change is raising challenging concerns for systematic conservation planning. Are methods based on the current spatial patterns of biodiversity effective given long-term climate change? Some conservation scientists argue that planning should focus on protecting the abiotic diversity in the landscape, which drives patterns of biological diversity, rather than focusing on the distribution of focal species, which shift in response to climate change. Climate is one important abiotic driver of biodiversity patterns, as different climates host different biological communities and genetic pools. We propose conservation networks that capture the full range of climatic diversity in a region will improve the resilience of biotic communities to climate change compared to networks that do not. In this study we used historical and future hydro-climate projections from the high resolution Basin Characterization Model to explore the utility of directly targeting climatic diversity in planning. Using the spatial planning tool, Marxan, we designed conservation networks to capture the diversity of climate types, at the regional and sub-regional scale, and compared them to networks we designed to capture the diversity of vegetation types. By focusing on the Conservation Lands Network (CLN) of the San Francisco Bay Area as a real-world case study, we compared the potential resilience of networks by examining two factors: the range of climate space captured, and climatic stability to 18 future climates, reflecting different emission scenarios and global climate models. We found that the climate-based network planned at the sub-regional scale captured a greater range of climate space and showed higher climatic stability than the vegetation and regional based-networks. At the same time, differences among network scenarios are small relative to the variance in climate stability across global climate models. Across different projected futures, topographically heterogeneous areas consistently show greater climate stability than homogenous areas. The analysis suggests that utilizing high-resolution climate and hydrological data in conservation planning improves the likely resilience of biodiversity to climate change. We used these analyses to suggest new conservation priorities for the San Francisco Bay Area.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2007

Strategic Plan for the North American Breeding Bird Survey: 2006-2010

Executive Summary The mission of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is to provide scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales to inform biologically sound conservation and management actions. Determining population trends, relative abundance, and distributions of North American avifauna is critical for identifying conservation priorities, determining appropriate conservation actions, and evaluating those actions. The BBS program, jointly coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, provides the U.S. and Canadian Federal governments, state and provincial agencies, other conservation practitioners, and the general public with science-based avian population trend estimates and other information for regional and national species’ population assessments. Despite the demonstrated value of the BBS for furthering avian conservation across North America, its importance is often underappreciated, and it is underfunded compared with many other government-supported programs that report on status of the environment. Today, BBS resources, adjusted for inflation, are below the amount allocated in the 1970s and are still only sufficient to support two biologists. Yet the number of routes, participants, data, and data requests has quadrupled. Data and information management and delivery requirements and security concerns, non-existent in 1966, impose further demands on BBS resources. In addition, the Mexican expansion of the BBS offers new hope for a truly continental approach to avian conservation, but also brings additional challenges. Meeting the goals of this plan will take cooperation among myriad stakeholders; yet, even with collaboration, most objectives of this plan will be unattainable if BBS program support is not increased. The BBS developed this strategic plan to help set priorities and identify resources required for the program to continue to meet the evolving needs of the conservation community for information on bird population change. By setting clear goals, strategies, and measures of success, this plan provides a cohesive framework and vision for maintenance and development of the BBS. The plan identifies two major goals for the BBS, with a number of strategies and objectives to achieve these goals. Over the next 5 years, progress made in addressing each long-term goal and its associated 5-year strategies and objectives will gage the plan’s success. Specific actions, projected outcomes, and measures of success related to accomplishing these are outlined in Table 1, with a timeline in Table 2. The two main goals for the program, with a summary of the strategies to achieve them, are: Goal 1: Collect scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales. The North American Breeding Bird Survey will continue to support North American natural resource conservation through the collection of scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of continental bird populations. While doing this, the BBS will work to improve the science behind the program to better meet its mission and the changing needs of the avian conservation community. In partnership with collaborators, the BBS will address detection probability bias and habitat bias, improve analytical methods, and more fully assess and account for observer quality. Moreover, the BBS will improve the quality and breadth of avian population data through strategic increases in route density and the establishment of a Mexican BBS program. Goal 2: Ensure BBS data and analytical results are widely available and easily accessible for use by the avian conservation and management communities. At the heart of the BBS lies a four-million-record database containing more than 40 years of data on more than 600 bird species. These data are of no value if not well maintained, appropriately analyzed, and widely and easily accessible. The USGS has greatly improved data management and accessibility in recent years. Trend estimates were first made available via the Internet in the mid-1990s, followed closely by the raw data with baseline metadata and standard operating procedures. Nevertheless, numerous enhancements to data management and the usability of BBS results will greatly improve the ability of the BBS to serve avian conservation goals. The BBS needs to ensure that BBS data and results presented on the web site use the best data-management practices and statistical methods, with adequate documentation for users to understand them and any differences between different trend estimates. Moreover, the BBS needs to increase communication with BBS partners and stakeholders to ensure that it continues to meet the avian population status and trends needs of the conservation community and to encourage the development of new products. Working with collaborators, the BBS will develop tools for integrating environmental parameters like habitat change into the analyses, and for integrating BBS data with other avian survey results. In addition, the BBS will continue to improve data and database management through the incorporation of additional data and data fields, such as georeferenced stop locations and more complete metadata for the raw data and results, thus enhancing the uses that can be made of the data.

Circular↗
USGS2024

The U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Science Center’s response plan for significant volcanic events

This publication describes the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Science Center (VSC) Response Plan for Significant Volcanic Events (hereinafter referred to as “the plan”) that has been developed for U.S volcano observatories over the past several years in consultation with the lead scientist, or Scientist-in-Charge (SIC), of each of the five U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories. The goal of the plan is to define a standardized management system that ensures the VSC can achieve the following during a volcanic crisis: maintain situational awareness and issue timely warnings and hazard assessments, fulfill internal and external agency requests for information as well as requests from the public, sustain financial and technical support, and gather critical scientific data. The plan addresses situations in which the scale of a response at least temporarily eclipses the response capabilities of a single observatory. The plan features two integrated response structures for managing and carrying out operations within the VSC during a crisis: the Observatory Volcanic Event Response Team (OVERT) and the Center Volcanic Event Response Team (CVERT). The design of these structures reflects lessons learned from past volcanic responses and is influenced by the Incident Command System used by the U.S. Federal Government for managing emergency responses. The plan clarifies expectations regarding the flow of information during a response, summarizes required tasks of the responding observatory and VSC to ensure a successful response, defines response-team roles and responsibilities, and describes the internal communication practices critical for an effective and coordinated response.

Circular↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey climate science plan—Future research directions

Executive Summary Climate is the primary driver of environmental change and is a key consideration in defining science priorities conducted across all mission areas in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Recognizing the importance of climate change to its future research agenda, the USGS’s Climate Science Steering Committee requested the development of a Climate Science Plan to identify future research directions. Subject matter experts from across the Bureau formed the USGS Climate Science Plan Writing Team, which convened in September 2022 to identify and outline the major climate science topics of future concern and develop an integrated approach to conducting climate science in support of the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior missions. The resulting USGS Climate Science Plan identifies three major priorities under which USGS climate science proceeds: (1) characterize climate change and associated impacts, (2) assess climate change risks and develop approaches to mitigate climate change, and (3) provide climate science tools and support. The Climate Science Plan identifies 12 specific goals to achieve the outcomes of the three priorities. Conduct long-term, broad-scale, and multidisciplinary measurements and monitoring and research activities to define, quantify, and predict the impacts of climate change on natural and human systems; Provide leadership to standardize measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions, lateral carbon fluxes, and carbon sinks across lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI); Provide science capacity, training, tools, and infrastructure to Tribal partners; support Tribal-led science initiatives; Conduct climate change research in partnership with the broader climate science community; Develop improved data synthesis methods through collaborative and open science across mission areas and between the USGS and agency partners; Translate climate change impacts into risk assessments in support of risk management strategies; Develop new and improved risk assessments, models, and approaches for mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts, and reducing uncertainties; design early warning systems for risk mitigation; Investigate climate change mitigation strategies and create decision science support tools to inform climate change mitigation and adaptation; Provide a framework that facilitates knowledge co-production needed to inform policy decisions; Provide access to USGS data and information through novel integration and visualization approaches; Build capacity within USGS and DOI through development of scientific training curricula; and Coordinate science and capacity building efforts broadly across the Federal Government. To achieve these goals, the USGS Climate Science Plan also outlines climate science guidelines—key elements for conducting climate-based research—as well as emerging opportunities to support successful climate science. The USGS Climate Science Plan provided in this circular will guide future research priorities and science-support investments, as well as continued development of the climate workforce for decades to come, ensuring that the USGS continues to serve as one of the Nation’s leading climate science agencies.

Circular↗
USGS2004

Compilation of Data to Support Development of a Pesticide Management Plan by the Yankton Sioux Tribe, Charles Mix County, South Dakota

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working with the Yankton Sioux Tribe to develop a pesticide management plan to reduce potential for contamination of ground water that may result from the use of registered pesticides. The purpose of this study was to compile technical information to support development of a pesticide management plan by the Yankton Sioux Tribe for the area within the Yankton Sioux Reservation, Charles Mix County, South Dakota. Five pesticides (alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, and simazine) were selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the management plan approach because they had been identified as probable or possible human carcinogens and they often had been associated with ground-water contamination in many areas and at high concentrations. This report provides a compilation of data to support development of a pesticide management plan. Available data sets are summarized in the text of this report, and actual data sets are provided in one Compact Disk?Read-Only Memory that is included with the report. The compact disk contains data sets pertinent to the development of a pesticide management plan. Pesticide use for the study area is described using information from state and national databases. Within South Dakota, pesticides commonly are applied to corn and soybean crops, which are the primary row crops grown in the study area. Water-quality analyses for pesticides are summarized for several surface-water sites. Pesticide concentrations in most samples were found to be below minimum reporting levels. Topographic data are presented in the form of 30-meter digital elevation model grids and delineation of drainage basins. Geohydrologic data are provided for the surficial deposits and the bedrock units. A high-resolution (30-by-30 meters) land-cover and land-use database is provided and summarized in a tabular format. More than 91 percent of the study area is used for row crops, pasture, or hay, and almost 6 percent of the study area is covered by water or wetlands. Average monthly and yearly precipitation data are summarized in a tabular format. Irrigation information associated with permitted and licensed diversion points is provided. A composite of aerial photographs of Charles Mix County is provided. This report also describes and summarizes the data sets and files, and how the data are relevant to development of a pesticide management plan.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona

Executive Summary Glen Canyon Dam is located in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on the Colorado River, approximately 15 miles upriver from Grand Canyon National Park (fig. 1). In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA; title XVIII, sec. 1801?1809, of Public Law 102-575), which seeks ?to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.? The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the 1996 Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and resources management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). On November 3, 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) announced it would develop a long-term experimental plan environmental impact statement (LTEP EIS) for operational activities at Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions on the Colorado River. The purpose of the long-term experimental plan is twofold: (1) to increase the scientific understanding of the ecosystem and (2) to improve and protect important downstream resources. The proposed plan would implement a structured, longterm program of experimentation to include dam operations, potential modifications to Glen Canyon Dam intake structures, and other management actions such as removal of nonnative fish species. The development of the long-term experimental plan continues efforts begun by the GCDAMP to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including Grand Canyon, through adaptive management and scientific experimentation. The LTEP EIS will rely on the extensive scientific studies that have been undertaken as part of the adaptive management program by the U.S. Geological Survey?s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), one of the four research stations within the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. On April 10 and 11, 2007, at the behest of Reclamation, the GCMRC convened a workshop with scientific experts to identify one or more scientifically credible, long-term experimental options for Reclamation to consider for the LTEP EIS that would be consistent with the purpose and need for the plan. Workshop participants included government, academic, and private scientists with broad experience in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon and regulated rivers around the world. Resource managers and GCDAMP participants were also present on the second day of the workshop. In advance of the workshop, Reclamation and LTEP EIS cooperating agencies identified 14 core scientific questions. Workshop participants were asked to consider how proposed options would address these questions, which fall primarily into four areas: (1) conservation of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and other high-priority biological resources, (2) conservation of sediment resources, (3) enhancement of recreational resources, and (4) preservation of cultural resources. A secondary objective of the workshop was the evaluation of four long-term experimental options developed by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) (appendix B). The flow and nonflow treatments called for in the four experimental options were an important starting point for workshop discussions. At the beginning of the workshop, participants were provided with the final LTEP EIS scoping report prepared by Reclamation. Participants were also advised that Reclamation had committed to ?make every effortEto ensure that a new population of humpback chub is established in the mainstem or one or more of the tributaries within Grand Canyon? in the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). This decision was consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?s 1995 bi

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Terrestrial forest management plan for Palmyra Atoll

This 'Terrestrial Forest Management Plan for Palmyra Atoll' was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Palmyra Program to refine and expand goals and objectives developed through the Conservation Action Plan process. It is one in a series of adaptive management plans designed to achieve TNC's mission toward the protection and enhancement of native wildlife and habitat. The 'Terrestrial Forest Management Plan for Palmyra Atoll' focuses on ecosystem integrity and specifically identifies and addresses issues related to assessing the status and distribution of resources, as well as the pressures acting upon them, most specifically nonnative and potentially invasive species. The plan, which presents strategies for increasing ecosystem integrity, provides a framework to implement and track the progress of conservation and restoration goals related to terrestrial resources on Palmyra Atoll. The report in its present form is intended to be an overview of what is known about historical and current forest resources; it is not an exhaustive review of all available literature relevant to forest management but an attempt to assemble as much information specific to Palmyra Atoll as possible. Palmyra Atoll is one of the Northern Line Islands in the Pacific Ocean southwest of the Hawai`ian Islands. It consists of many heavily vegetated islets arranged in a horseshoe pattern around four lagoons and surrounded by a coral reef. The terrestrial ecosystem consists of three primary native vegetation types: Pisonia grandis forest, coastal strand forest, and grassland. Among these vegetation types, the health and extent of Pisonia grandis forest is of particular concern. Overall, the three vegetation types support 25 native plant species (two of which may be extirpated), 14 species of sea birds, six shore birds, at least one native reptile, at least seven native insects, and six native land crabs. Green and hawksbill turtles forage at Palmyra Atoll, and though rarely documented, beach nesting could be affected by terrestrial management actions. There are various nonnative or invasive species throughout the terrestrial ecosystem. The most notable examples of terrestrial invasive species include coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) and black rats (Rattus rattus). Although it is unclear whether they are nonnative, coconut palms are currently the most dominant plant across Palmyra Atoll. They compete with native plant species for space and resources and are potentially detrimental to sea birds dependent on native vegetation for roosting and nesting habitat. This competition in turn impacts nutrient resource availability, thereby reshaping energy flow in the ecosystem. Black rats are known to prey on ground-nesting sea birds and are likely responsible for the lack of burrowing sea bird reproduction at Palmyra Atoll. In addition, they may be facilitating the invasion of other nonnative species and negatively impacting other native fauna. Although the extent and impacts of these and other nonnative and (or) invasive species are not fully understood, the extent and impacts are clearly a threat to the native species and one of the most urgent threats to the overall ecosystem integrity of Palmyra Atoll. This 'Terrestrial Forest Management Plan for Palmyra Atoll' addresses issues related to invasive species and other problems. Priority goals are established as are associated objectives and strategies. The overarching goal is to perpetuate and where possible restore terrestrial ecosystem integrity through the following techniques: 1. Habitat management: Maintain and enhance habitat to the extent possible to sustain thriving Pisonia grandis forest, coastal strand forest, endemic grassland, self-sustaining populations of sea birds, shore birds, coconut crabs, native lizards, and native insects. 2. Monitoring and assessment: Acquire information on distribution and abundance as needed for conservation of each resour

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Proceedings of a Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop for the Western United States

Recent scientific and ocean policy assessments demonstrate that a fundamental change in our current management system is required to achieve the long-term health of our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes in order to sustain the services and benefits they provide to society. The present (2011) species- and sector-centric way we manage these ecosystems cannot account properly for cumulative effects, sustaining multiple ecosystem services, and holistically and explicitly evaluating the tradeoffs associated with proposed alternative and multiple human uses. A transition to an ecosystem-based approach to management and conservation of coastal and marine resources is needed. Competing uses and activities such as commerce, recreation, cultural practices, energy development, conservation, and national security are increasing pressure for new and expanded resource usage in coastal marine ecosystems. Current management efforts use a sector-by-sector approach that mostly focuses on a limited range of tools and outcomes [for example, oil and gas leases, fishery management plans, and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)]. A comprehensive, ecosystem-based, and proactive approach to planning and managing these uses and activities is needed. Further, scientific understanding and information are essential to achieve an integrated decision-making process that includes knowledge of ecosystem services, existing and possible future conditions, and potential consequences of natural and anthropogenic events. Because no single government agency has executive authority for coastal or ocean resources, conflicting objectives around competing uses abound. In recent years, regional- and state-level initiatives in Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) have emerged to coordinate management activities. In some respects, the components and steps of the overall CMSP process are similar to how existing ocean resources are regulated and managed. For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) uses spatial planning exercises in State Renewable Energy Task Force meetings to identify competing and conflicting ocean uses, and to delineate areas suitable for renewable energy development. Similarly terrestrial areas such as in national parks and national wildlife refuges managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) prepare management plans for preservation and restoration of species and habitats of concern, some of which are protected by law. The analogy to CMSP is clear - multiple users and multiple expectations, resulting in the requirement to establish spatial plans for management of different resources and different ecosystem services. A two-day workshop on December 1-2, 2010, was convened for DOI representatives and several key non-DOI participants with roles in CMSP as a step toward clarifying national perspectives and consequences of the National Ocean Policy for the West (appendix 1). Discussions helped to develop an understanding of CMSP from the federal perspective and to identify regional priorities. An overarching theme was to promote a better understanding of current and future science needs. The workshop format included briefings by key Federal agencies on their understanding of the national focus followed by discussion of regional issues, including the needs for scientific information and coordination. The workshop also explored potential science contributions by Federal agencies and others; utilizing current capabilities, data, and information systems; and provided a foundation for possible future regional workshops focusing in turn on the West Coast Region (California, Oregon, and Washington), Pacific Islands (sometimes referred to as Oceania) and Alaska. Participants were asked to share information in the following areas, recognizing that the purpose would be to learn more about the national perspective (see appendixes 2-4): Explore how the Western U.S. (Alaska, Pacific Islands, and West Coast Region) migh

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

An inventory and monitoring plan for a Sonoran Desert ecosystem; Barry M. Goldwater Range-West

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma manages the Barry M. Goldwater Range-West, which encompasses approximately 2,800 square kilometers of Sonoran Desert habitat in southwestern Arizona. The Barry M. Goldwater Range is a major U.S. military installation designed as an air combat training location for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force, but it also includes some of the most pristine desert habitat in the United States. In an effort to ensure the long-term viability of this unique natural resource, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Inventory and Monitoring Plan to guide natural resource management of the Barry M. Goldwater Range-West. This Inventory and Monitoring Plan provides a framework for long-term ecosystem monitoring on Barry M. Goldwater Range-West lands by identifying existing and potential threats to ecosystem function, prioritizing resources for monitoring, and providing information and protocols necessary to initiate a long-term ecosystem monitoring program. The Inventory and Monitoring Plan and related protocols were developed through extensive review of existing Sonoran Desert monitoring programs and monitoring literature and through a 2-day workshop with resource managers, monitoring experts, and other stakeholders. The Barry M. Goldwater Range-West Inventory and Monitoring Plan stresses the importance of regional monitoring partnerships and protocol standardization for understanding landscape-scale ecosystem changes in the Sonoran Desert; information and protocols contained within the plan may also be of interest to land managers engaged in large-scale ecosystem monitoring and adaptive management of other arid regions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Quality-assurance plan for groundwater activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center

This report documents the standard procedures, policies, and field methods used by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Washington Water Science Center staff for activities related to the collection, processing, analysis, storage, and publication of groundwater data. This groundwater quality-assurance plan changes through time to accommodate new methods and requirements developed by the Washington Water Science Center and the USGS Office of Groundwater. The plan is based largely on requirements and guidelines provided by the USGS Office of Groundwater, or the USGS Water Mission Area. Regular updates to this plan represent an integral part of the quality-assurance process. Because numerous policy memoranda have been issued by the Office of Groundwater since the previous groundwater quality assurance plan was written, this report is a substantial revision of the previous report, supplants it, and contains significant additional policies not covered in the previous report. This updated plan includes information related to the organization and responsibilities of USGS Washington Water Science Center staff, training, safety, project proposal development, project review procedures, data collection activities, data processing activities, report review procedures, and archiving of field data and interpretative information pertaining to groundwater flow models, borehole aquifer tests, and aquifer tests. Important updates from the previous groundwater quality assurance plan include: (1) procedures for documenting and archiving of groundwater flow models; (2) revisions to procedures and policies for the creation of sites in the Groundwater Site Inventory database; (3) adoption of new water-level forms to be used within the USGS Washington Water Science Center; (4) procedures for future creation of borehole geophysics, surface geophysics, and aquifer-test archives; and (5) use of the USGS Multi Optional Network Key Entry System software for entry of routine water-level data collected as part of long-term water-level monitoring networks.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 2013-23: Part 2: Science plan for improved water-quality information and management

This report presents a science strategy for the third decade of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, which since 1991, has been responsible for providing nationally consistent information on the quality of the Nation's streams and groundwater; how water quality is changing over time; and the major natural and human factors that affect current water quality conditions and trends. The strategy is based on an extensive evaluation of the accomplishments of NAWQA over its first two decades, the current status of water-quality monitoring activities by USGS and its partners, and an updated analysis of stakeholder priorities. The plan is designed to address priority issues and national needs identified by NAWQA stakeholders and the National Research Council (2012) irrespective of budget constraints. This plan describes four major goals for the third decade (Cycle 3), the approaches for monitoring, modeling, and scientific studies, key partnerships required to achieve these goals, and products and outcomes that will result from planned assessment activities. The science plan for 2013–2023 is a comprehensive approach to meet stakeholder priorities for: (1) rebuilding NAWQA monitoring networks for streams, rivers, and groundwater, and (2) upgrading models used to extrapolate and forecast changes in water-quality and stream ecosystem condition in response to changing climate and land use. The Cycle 3 plan continues approaches that have been central to the Program’s long-term success, but adjusts monitoring intensities and study designs to address critical information needs and identified data gaps. Restoration of diminished monitoring networks and new directions in modeling and interpretative studies address growing and evolving public and stakeholder needs for water-quality information and improved management, particularly in the face of increasing challenges related to population growth, increasing demands for water, and changing land use and climate. However, a combination of funding growth and extensive collaboration with other USGS programs and other Federal, State, and local agencies, public interest groups, professional and trade associations, academia, and private industry will be needed to fully realize the monitoring and modeling goals laid out in this plan (USGS Fact Sheet 2013-3008).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

South Atlantic Water Science Center Strategic Science Plan: 2019–23

Executive Summary The South Atlantic Water Science Center Strategic Science Planning Team has developed a unified strategic science plan to guide the science vision of the South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC) in response to the merging of the Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina Water Science Centers. This plan proposes a path forward to keep SAWSC science activities relevant to the many diverse needs of stakeholders in the South Atlantic region (Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and considers the hydrologic setting and issues of the region. This plan advises the creation of five working groups to address five priority science topics for the period 2019–23 and beyond. The five priority science topics are (1) Foundational Data, (2) Effects of Land-Use Change, (3) Coastal Plain Science, (4) Water Availability, and (5) Hazards. From the goals laid forth in this plan for each priority science topic, the working groups plan to devise a set of strategic actions and milestones to be achieved by the SAWSC to provide valuable and relevant data, research, and assessments in the South Atlantic region. In this report, the “South Atlantic region” is used to describe the area encompassed by the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment: Invasives topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed six needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Invasives topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs related to the control of invasive plant species in sagebrush rangelands, with a special emphasis on invasive annual grasses. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed, or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 198 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Invasives topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: studies of natural and anthropogenic factors influencing the distribution and spread; methods of preventing, eradicating and controlling invasive plant species; development of mapping techniques that provide regularly updated annual grass and fine fuel projections; and assessment of the efficacy of potential cheatgrass biocontrol agents. Needs that were addressed poorly included (1) investigations of livestock grazing as a tool for managing invasive plants and (2) investigations of cheatgrass die-offs and identification and subsequent study of potential biocontrol agents associated with those die-offs. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗