Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Developments in Water Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Flood-inundation maps for the Leaf River at Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 1.7-mile reach of the Leaf River were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Hattiesburg, City of Petal, Forrest County, Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, Mississippi Department of Homeland Security, and the Emergency Management District. The Leaf River study reach extends from just upstream of the U.S. Highway 11 crossing to just downstream of East Hardy/South Main Street and separates the cities of Hattiesburg and Petal, Mississippi. The inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent of flooding corresponding to selected water-surface elevations (stages) at the USGS streamgage at Leaf River at Hattiesburg, Mississippi (02473000). Current conditions at the USGS streamgage may be obtained through the National Water Information System Web site at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ms/nwis/uv/?site_no=02473000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060 . In addition, the information has been provided to the National Weather Service (NWS) for incorporation into their Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) flood-warning system ( http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ ). The NWS forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often collocated at USGS streamgages. The forecasted peak-stage information, available on the AHPS Web site, may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. In this study, flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The model was calibrated using the most current stage-discharge relations at the Leaf River at Hattiesburg, Mississippi, streamgage and documented high-water marks from recent and historical floods. The hydraulic model was then used to determine 13 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1.0-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from bankfull to approximately the highest recorded water-surface elevation at the streamgage. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model [derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data having a 0.6-foot vertical accuracy and 9.84-foot horizontal resolution] in order to delineate the area flooded at each 1-foot increment of stream stage. The availability of these maps, when combined with real-time stage information from USGS streamgages and forecasted stream stage from the NWS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with critical information during flood-response activities, such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Mississippi↗
USGS2010

Background and introduction: Chapter 1

The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-320; hereafter the Act) directs the Department of the Interior to submit a report to Congress1 that includes an assessment of several issues surrounding these two nonnative trees, now dominant components of the vegetation along many rivers in the Western United States. Specifically, the Act calls for “…an assessment of the extent of salt cedar and Russian olive infestation on public and private land in the western United States,” which shall “A) consider existing research on methods to control salt cedar and Russian olive trees; B) consider the feasibility of reducing water consumption by salt cedar and Russian olive trees; C) consider methods of and challenges associated with the revegetation or restoration of infested land; and D) estimate the costs of destruction of salt cedar and Russian olive trees, related biomass removal, and revegetation or restoration and maintenance of the infested land.” Finally, the Act calls for discussion of “(i) long-term management and funding strategies…that could be implemented by Federal, State, tribal, and private land managers and owners to address the infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive; (ii) any deficiencies in the assessment or areas for additional study; and (iii) any field demonstrations that would be useful in the effort to control salt cedar and Russian olive.” The primary intent of this report is to provide the science assessment called for under the Act. A secondary purpose is to provide a common background for applicants for prospective demonstration projects, should funds be appropriated for this second phase of the Act. In addition to relying on the direction provided under Section C of the Act, the authors of this report also drew upon the detailed list of considerations presented in Section E of the Act to guide development of more expansive discussions of topics relevant to saltcedar and Russian olive control efforts. In addition to the legislative context described above, this chapter describes the geographic and environmental contexts surrounding the Act, including key terminology used in subsequent chapters of this report. Subsequent chapters synthesize the state-of-the-science on the following topics: distribution and abundance (extent) of saltcedar and Russian olive in the Western United States, potential for water savings associated with control of saltcedar and Russian olive and associated restoration, considerations related to wildlife use of saltcedar and Russian olive habitat or restored habitats, methods to control saltcedar and Russian olive, possible utilization of dead biomass following control, and approaches and challenges associated with revegetation or restoration following control. A concluding chapter includes discussion of possible long-term management strategies, areas for additional study, potentially useful field demonstrations, and a planning process for on-the-ground projects involving removal of saltcedar and Russian olive.

Book chapter↗
USGS1992

Groundwater use: Equilibrium between social benefits and potential environmental costs

In many countries groundwater resources are under-appreciated and, therefore, underutilizied; whereas, in some areas they are inappropriately exploited and, therefore, over-utilized. “Over utilization” can lead to depletion in quantity or a degradation in quality or both. Obstacles to effective management include: (1) lack of knowledge of basic principles of groundwater science among water planners, (2) in many, if not in most countries, ownership of groundwater is in the private domain with the result that codependence is unrecognized, and (3) a misunderstanding by water planners of the concepts of “overexploitation%rdquo; and conjunctive use. The economic, social, and hydrologic constraints and procedures for management for sustainable development of groundwater are significantly different from those for surface water because these differences result from such things as (1) groundwater development is not dependent on large scale collective projects (unlike the utilization of surface water that requires engineering structures for diverting, regulating and transporting water), (2) the activities of many different groups can affect the quality of water, and (3) users of groundwater often are not aware of their co-dependence on the groundwater heritage in which each participates. Hydrogeologists should try to identify those governmental policies that have a detrimental environmental effect, promote those policies that are beneficial, and demonstrate the need for a policy in matters where a policy is lacking.

Hydrogeology Journal↗
USGS2017

The Upper Mississippi River System—Topobathy

The Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS), the navigable part of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, is a diverse ecosystem that contains river channels, tributaries, shallow-water wetlands, backwater lakes, and flood-plain forests. Approximately 10,000 years of geologic and hydrographic history exist within the UMRS. Because it maintains crucial wildlife and fish habitats, the dynamic ecosystems of the Upper Mississippi River Basin and its tributaries are contingent on the adjacent flood plains and water-level fluctuations of the Mississippi River. Separate data for flood-plain elevation (lidar) and riverbed elevation (bathymetry) were collected on the UMRS by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) Program. Using the two elevation datasets, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) developed a systemic topobathy dataset.

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin↗
USGS2021

Streamflow response to potential changes in climate in the Upper Rio Grande Basin

The Rio Grande is a vital water source for the southwestern States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas and for northern Mexico. The river serves as the primary source of water for irrigation in the region, has many environmental and recreational uses, and is used by more than 13 million people including those in the Cities of Albuquerque and Las Cruces, New Mexico; El Paso, Texas; and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico. However, concern is growing over the increasing gap between water supply and demand in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. As populations increase and agricultural crop patterns change, demands for water are increasing, at the same time the region is undergoing a decrease in supply due to drought and climate change. Quantifying the impact of projected climate change on Rio Grande streamflow is difficult because of numerous anthropogenic influences on the hydrologic system. The conveyance and use of surface water in the Upper Rio Grande Basin are achieved through an engineered system of reservoirs, diversions, and irrigation canals designed to deliver water to agricultural, municipal, and industrial users, who greatly reduce the cumulative volume of water in the river. For example, streamflow at Fort Quitman, Tex., the southernmost point of the Upper Rio Grande Basin, has undergone a 95-percent reduction in flow relative to the river’s native state, and some stretches of the river can intermittently go dry. Because streamflow in the basin is highly altered, disentangling the impacts of climate change and changes in streamflow due to anthropogenic influences such as dams, diversions, and other forms of water use is difficult. Therefore, a model of naturalized flow was developed to determine to what degree changes in streamflow can be attributed to potential changes in future temperature and precipitation without quantifying future changes in anthropogenic influences. This study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, included the development and calibration of a watershed model of the Upper Rio Grande Basin using the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System to simulate naturalized streamflow conditions for historical and future time periods.

Colorado, New Mexico, Texas↗
USGS2006

Water resources data, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, water year 2004

The Caribbean Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and Federal agencies obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the area. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the U.S. Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled 'Water Resources Data for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.' This report includes records on both surface and ground water. Specifically, it contains: (1) discharge records for 89 streamflow-gaging stations, daily sediment records for 13 sediment stations, stage records for 18 reservoirs, and (2) water-quality records for 20 streamflow-gaging stations, and for 38 ungaged stream sites, 13 lake sites, 2 lagoons, and 1 bay, and (3) water-level records for 72 observation wells. Water-resources data for Puerto Rico for calendar years 1958-67 were released in a series of reports entitled 'Water Records of Puerto Rico.' Water-resources data for the U.S. Virgin Islands for the calendar years 1962-69 were released in a report entitled 'Water Records of U.S. Virgin Islands.' Included were records of streamflow, ground-water levels, and water-quality data for both surface and ground water. Beginning with the 1968 calendar year, surface-water records for Puerto Rico were released separately on an annual basis. Ground-water level records and water-quality data for surface and ground water were released in companion reports covering periods of several years. Data for the 1973-74 reports were published under separate covers. Water-resources data reports for 1975 to 2003 water years consist of one volume each and contain data for streamflow, water quality, and ground water.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2016

Developing integrated methods to address complex resource and environmental issues

Introduction This circular provides an overview of selected activities that were conducted within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Integrated Methods Development Project, an interdisciplinary project designed to develop new tools and conduct innovative research requiring integration of geologic, geophysical, geochemical, and remote-sensing expertise. The project was supported by the USGS Mineral Resources Program, and its products and acquired capabilities have broad applications to missions throughout the USGS and beyond. In addressing challenges associated with understanding the location, quantity, and quality of mineral resources, and in investigating the potential environmental consequences of resource development, a number of field and laboratory capabilities and interpretative methodologies evolved from the project that have applications to traditional resource studies as well as to studies related to ecosystem health, human health, disaster and hazard assessment, and planetary science. New or improved tools and research findings developed within the project have been applied to other projects and activities. Specifically, geophysical equipment and techniques have been applied to a variety of traditional and nontraditional mineral- and energy-resource studies, military applications, environmental investigations, and applied research activities that involve climate change, mapping techniques, and monitoring capabilities. Diverse applied geochemistry activities provide a process-level understanding of the mobility, chemical speciation, and bioavailability of elements, particularly metals and metalloids, in a variety of environmental settings. Imaging spectroscopy capabilities maintained and developed within the project have been applied to traditional resource studies as well as to studies related to ecosystem health, human health, disaster assessment, and planetary science. Brief descriptions of capabilities and laboratory facilities and summaries of some applications of project products and research findings are included in this circular. The work helped support the USGS mission to “provide reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.” Activities within the project include the following: Spanned scales from microscopic to planetary; Demonstrated broad applications across disciplines; Included life-cycle studies of mineral resources; Incorporated specialized areas of expertise in applied geochemistry including mineralogy, hydrogeology, analytical chemistry, aqueous geochemistry, biogeochemistry, microbiology, aquatic toxicology, and public health; and Incorporated specialized areas of expertise in geophysics including magnetics, gravity, radiometrics, electromagnetics, seismic, ground-penetrating radar, borehole radar, and imaging spectroscopy. This circular consists of eight sections that contain summaries of various activities under the project. The eight sections are listed below: Laboratory Facilities and Capabilities, which includes brief descriptions of the various types of laboratories and capabilities used for the project; Method and Software Development, which includes summaries of remote-sensing, geophysical, and mineralogical methods developed or enhanced by the project; Instrument Development, which includes descriptions of geophysical instruments developed under the project; Minerals, Energy, and Climate, which includes summaries of research that applies to mineral or energy resources, environmental processes and monitoring, and carbon sequestration by earth materials; Element Cycling, Toxicity, and Health, which includes summaries of several process-oriented geochemical and biogeochemical studies and health-related research activities; Hydrogeology and Water Quality, which includes descriptions of innovative geophysical, remote-sensing, and geochemical research pertaining to hydrogeology and water-quality applications; Hazards and Disaster Assessment, which includes summaries of research and method development that were applied to natural hazards, human-caused hazards, and disaster assessments; and Databases and Framework Studies, which includes descriptions of fundamental applications of geophysical studies and of the importance of archived data.

Circular↗
USGS1999

Techniques for restoration of disturbed coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes

A long history of human-induced degradation of Great Lakes wetlands has made restoration a necessity, but the practice of wetland restoration is relatively new, especially in large lake systems. Therefore, we compiled tested methods and developed additional potential methods based on scientific understanding of Great Lakes wetland ecosytems to providc an overview of approaches for restoration. We addressed this challenge by focusing on four general fields of science: hydrology, sedimentology, chemistry, and biology. Hydrologic remediation methods include restoring hydrologic connections between diked and hydrologically altered wetlands and the lakes, restoring water tables lowered by ditching, and restoring natural variation in lake levels of regulated lakes Superior and Ontario. Sedimentological remediation methods include management of sediment input from uplands, removal or proper management of dams on tributary rivers, and restoration of protective barrier beaches and sand spits. Chemical remediation methods include reducing or eliminating inputs of contaminants from point and non-pont sources, natural sediment remediation by biodegradation and chemical degradation, and active sediment remediation by removal or by in situ treatment Biological remediation methods include control of non-target organisms, enhancing populations of target organisms, and enhancing habitat for target organisms. Some of these method were used in three major restoration projects (Metzger Marsh on Lake Erie and Cootes Paradise and Oshawa Second Marsh on Lake Ontario), which are described as case studies to show practical applications of wetland restoration in the Great Lakes. Successful restoration techniques that do not require continued manipulation must be founded in the basic tenets of ecology and should mimic natural processes. Success is demonstrated by the sustainability, productivity, nutrient-retention ability, invasibility, and biotic interactions within a restored wetland.

Wetlands↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Cumberland County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Cumberland County, documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Cumberland County, Maine is 21 years. Most of these studies were in the early to mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-25 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Cumberland County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Cumberland County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how effective FIS data can be used in new project, and identify other data needed to

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Kennebec County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Kennebec County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Kennebec County, Maine is 16 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Kennebec County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Kennebec County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how e

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Somerset County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Somerset County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Somerset County, Maine is 18.1 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Somerset County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Somerset County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and ho

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Summary of West Virginia Water-Resource Data through September 2008

The West Virginia Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of West Virginia each water year. A water year is the 12-month period beginning October 1 and ending September 30. These data, accumulated during many years, constitute a valuable database for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. These data are maintained in the National Water Information System (NWIS) and are available through its World-Wide Web interface, NWISWeb, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/nwis. Data can be retrieved in a variety of common formats, and a tutorial is available at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tutorial. Location information for all continuous-record gaging stations operated in West Virginia through September 2008 is provided in this report, as well as statistical summaries of the available daily records. This report can serve as an index to the daily records data available on the World-Wide Web. Hydrologic data for nearly all of the gaging stations identified in this report are also available in the annual publication series titled Water-Resources Data - West Virginia. This series of annual reports for West Virginia began with the 1961 water year with a report that contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. For the 1964 water year, a similar report was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year, the report format was changed to include data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface water and groundwater, and groundwater levels. Prior to the introduction of the Water-Resources Data - West Virginia series and for several water years concurrent with it, water-resources data for West Virginia were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage and on lake or reservoir contents and stage through September 1960 were published annually under the title Surface-Water Supply of the United States, Parts 6A and 6B. For the 1961 through 1970 water years, the data were published in two 5-year reports. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941 through 1970 water years were published annually under the title Quality of Surface Water of the United States, and water levels for the 1935 through 1974 water years were published under the title Ground-Water Levels in the United States. Many of the above mentioned Water-Supply Papers are available at the USGS Publications Warehouse (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov), and most of the others may be found in the collections of large libraries or may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, Colorado 80225. Annual reports on hydrologic data are published by the Geological Survey for all states, and each has an identification number consisting of the two-letter state abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, the 2005 water year report for West Virginia is identified as U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report WV-05-01. Water-Data Reports for West Virginia for 2001-2005 are available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/#WV. Water-Data Reports for water years prior to 2006 are for sale in paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Since the 2006 water year, the report is published online only and is available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/. When substantial errors in published records are discovered, the records are revised. Such revisions are routine and are made to records regardless of the age of the original records. Revisions have been made for many stations for which data are published in this report. The USGS National Water Information System always contains the most recent data revisions. For critical a

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Assessment of general health of fishes collected at selected sites in the Great Lakes Basin In 2012

During the past decade, there has been a substantive increase in the detection of “emerging contaminants”, defined as a new substance, chemical, or metabolite in the environment; or a legacy substance with a newly expanded distribution, altered release, or a newly recognized effect (such as endocrine disruption). Emerging contaminants include substances such as biogenic hormones (human and animal), brominated flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, plasticizers, current use pesticides, detergents, and nanoparticles. These contaminants are frequently not regulated or inadequately regulated by state or Federal water quality programs. Information about the toxicity of these substances to fish and wildlife resources is generally limited, compared to more highly regulated contaminants, and some classes have been shown to cause affects (for example feminization of male fish, immunomodulation) that are not evaluated via traditional toxicity testing protocols. As a result, these compounds may pose a substantial, but currently poorly documented threat to aquatic ecosystems. Failure to identify and understand the impacts of these emerging contaminants on fish and wildlife resources may result in deleterious impacts to Great Lakes resources that can result in adverse ecological, economic and recreational consequences. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service received funding through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) for an Early Warning Program to detect and identify emerging contaminants and to evaluate the effects of these contaminants on fish and wildlife. The U.S. Geological Survey (WV Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and National Fish Health Research Laboratory, Leetown Science Center) developed and implemented a biological effects monitoring protocol to assist in this program. Fish collections and measurements of biomarkers of exposure in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 occurred at individual sites within select Areas of Concern (AOCs). They provided an assessment of the utility of the suite of biomarkers and also identified sites for more in-depth analyses. Selected areas are characterized as areas with known emerging contaminants, sensitive or listed species, areas downstream from municipal wastewater discharges or receiving waters for industrial facilities, and/or areas susceptible to agricultural or urban contamination, or harbors or ports. The results of the 2010- 2011 studies were summarized in Blazer et al. 2014 a, b, c; Braham et al. in review and Blazer et al. in review.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2023

Improving the operational simplified surface energy balance evapotranspiration model using the forcing and normalizing operation

Actual evapotranspiration modeling is providing useful information for researchers and resource managers in agriculture and water resources around the world. The performance of models depends on the accuracy of forcing inputs and model parameters. We developed an improved approach to the parameterization of the Operational Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SSEBop) model using the Forcing and Normalizing Operation (FANO). SSEBop has two key model parameters that define the model boundary conditions. The FANO algorithm computes the wet-bulb boundary condition using a linear FANO Equation relating surface temperature, surface psychrometric constant, and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). The FANO parameterization was implemented on two computing platforms using Landsat and gridded meteorological datasets: (1) Google Earth Engine (GEE) and (2) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center Science Processing Architecture (ESPA). Evaluation was conducted by comparing modeled actual evapotranspiration ( ETa ) estimates with AmeriFlux eddy covariance (EC) and water balance ETa from level-8 Hydrologic Unit Code sub-basins in the conterminous United States. FANO brought substantial improvements in model accuracy and operational implementation. Compared to the earlier version (v0.1.7), SSEBop FANO (v0.2.6) reduced grassland bias from 47% to −2% while maintaining comparable bias for croplands (11% versus −7%) against EC data. A water balance-based ETa bias evaluation showed an overall improvement from 7% to −1%. Climatology versus annual gridded reference evapotranspiration ( ETr ) produced comparable ETa results, justifying the use of climatology ETr for the global SSEBop Landsat ETa that is accessible through the ESPA website. Besides improvements in model accuracy, SSEBop FANO increases the spatiotemporal coverage of ET modeling due to the elimination of high NDVI requirements for model parameterization. Because of the existence of potential biases from forcing inputs and model parameters, continued evaluation and bias corrections are necessary to improve the absolute magnitude of ETa for localized water budget applications.

Remote Sensing↗
USGS2007

Sustaining Rocky Mountain landscapes: Science, policy and management for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem

Prato and Fagre offer the first systematic, multi-disciplinary assessment of the challenges involved in managing the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem ( CCE), an area of the Rocky Mountains that includes northwestern Montana, southwestern Alberta, and southeastern British Columbia. The spectacular landscapes, extensive recreational options, and broad employment opportunities of the CCE have made it one of the fastest growing regions in the United States and Canada, and have lead to a shift in its economic base from extractive resource industries to service-oriented recreation and tourism industries. In the process, however, the amenities and attributes that draw people to this “New West” are under threat. Pastoral scenes are disappearing as agricultural lands and other open spaces are converted to residential uses, biodiversity is endangered by the fragmentation of fish and wildlife habitats, and many areas are experiencing a decline in air and water quality. Sustaining Rocky Mountain Landscapes provides a scientific basis for communities to develop policies for managing the growth and economic transformation of the CCE without sacrificing the quality of life and environment for which the land is renowned. This forthcoming edited volume focuses on five aspects of sustaining mountain landscapes in the CCE and similar regions in the Rocky Mountains. The five aspects are: 1) how social, economic, demo graphic and environmental forces are transforming ecosystem structure and function, 2) trends in use and conditions for human and environmental resources, 3) activating science, policy and education to enhance sustainable landscape management, 4) challenges to sustainable management of public and private lands, and 5) future prospects for achieving sustainable landscapes.

Idaho, Montana↗
USGS2025

How do hydrological variability and human activities control the spatiotemporal changes of riverine nitrogen export in the Upper Mississippi River Basin?

Excessive nitrogen export from agricultural watersheds remains a critical water quality challenge, with the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) significantly contributing to downstream eutrophication and hypoxia in the Gulf. This study investigates the spatiotemporal dynamics of riverine nitrate plus nitrite (NO 3 – + NO 2 – -N) export across the UMRB at high spatial resolution (12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes or HUC12 subwatershed scale) during 2001–2020 and quantifies the effects of anthropogenic activities and hydrological variability on riverine NO 3 – + NO 2 – -N export changes in the region between 2001–2005 and 2016–2020. Our results revealed hotspots of substantial increases in NO 3 – + NO 2 – -N yields across the UMRB, with distinct regional patterns in driving factors. Over the entire UMRB, NO 3 – + NO 2 – -N yields increased by 9.7 kg/ha/yr on average from 2001–2005 to 2016–2020, with anthropogenic activities contributing 4.8 kg/ha/yr and hydrological variability contributing 4.9 kg/ha/yr. The northern and western UMRB had combined influences from both anthropogenic activities and hydrological variability, while the east-central regions had predominantly hydrologically driven changes. Agricultural sources, including fertilizer, manure, and biological nitrogen fixation, collectively contributed over 80% of NO 3 – + NO 2 – -N loading throughout the basin. This framework for disentangling human and hydrological impacts provides critical insights for developing effective and targeted watershed management strategies to reduce nutrient losses and improve water quality.

Upper Mississippi River Basin↗
USGS2023

The value of scientific information — An overview

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides reliable science, data, information, and models (hereafter collectively referred to as “information”) to describe and understand the Earth. This information is used to minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect quality of life. USGS science informs public and private decisions, operations, and risk management in all major United States economic sectors, as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and provides critical information for natural resource and natural hazard management and stewardship decisions. Understanding the value of scientific information supports applications of USGS science in land- and water-management decisions, and better informs the public about the return on investment of USGS programs. USGS economists, social scientists, and physical scientists are engaged in collaborative efforts to advance methods to estimate the value of information (VOI) produced by the USGS. These efforts involve collaborating with an international community to develop and refine estimation methods, establish best practices to determine VOI, develop a study repository, and conduct projects to assess the VOI of specific information products and their application. This report focuses on economic valuation conducted by USGS specifically, although the methodology has much broader applicability within the U.S. government, academia, and beyond. Noneconomic valuation techniques for assessing the VOI also exist but are not addressed in this report.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—Physiography, climate, land use, and demographics

The Williston Basin has been a leading domestic oil and gas producing region. As energy demands have increased, so has energy development. A group of 13 Federal agencies and Tribal groups formed the Bakken Federal Executive Group to address common challenges associated with energy development, with a focus on understanding the cumulative environmental challenges attributed to oil and gas development throughout the basin. To better understand the natural resources in the Williston Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, began work to synthesize existing information on science topics that will support management decisions related to energy development. This report is a compilation of information regarding the natural setting, energy development history, demographics, and related investigations related to energy development in the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Completed and ongoing investigations include the topical areas of unconventional oil and gas assessments, water quality, water availability, air quality, effects on human health, and ecological effects.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗