Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Research and Exploration”

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.

1,306 records · Page 73Linked to original sources
USGS2002

Ancient impact structures on modern continental shelves: The Chesapeake Bay, Montagnais, and Toms Canyon craters, Atlantic margin of North America

Three ancient impact craters (Chesapeake Bay - 35.7 Ma; Toms Canyon - 35.7 Ma; Montagnais - 51 Ma) and one multiring impact basin (Chicxulub - 65 Ma) are currently known to be buried beneath modern continental shelves. All occur on the passive Atlantic margin of North America in regions extensively explored by seismic reflection surveys in the search for oil and gas reserves. We limit our discussion herein to the three youngest structures. These craters were created by submarine impacts, which produced many structural and morphological features similar in construction, composition, and variability to those documented in well-preserved subaerial and planetary impact craters. The subcircular Chesapeake Bay (diameter 85 km) and ovate Montagnais (diameter 45-50 km) structures display outer-rim scarps, annular troughs, peak rings, inner basins, and central peaks similar to those incorporated in the widely cited conceptual model of complex impact craters. These craters differ in several respects from the model, however. For example, the Montagnais crater lacks a raised lip on the outer rim, the Chesapeake Bay crater displays only small remnants of a raised lip, and both craters contain an unusually thick body of impact breccia. The subtriangular Toms Canyon crater (diameter 20-22 km), on the other hand, contains none of the internal features of a complex crater, nor is it typical of a simple crater. It displays a prominent raised lip on the outer rim, but the lip is present only on the western side of the crater. In addition, each of these craters contains some distinct features, which are not present in one or both of the others. For example, the central peak at Montagnais rises well above the elevation of the outer rim, whereas at Chesapeake Bay, the outer rim is higher than the central peak. The floor of the Toms Canyon crater is marked by parallel deep troughs and linear ridges formed of sedimentary rocks, whereas at Chesapeake Bay, the crater floor contains concentric faults and compression ridges formed in rocks of the crystalline basement. The Chesapeake Bay crater is distinguished further by its cluster of at least 23 adjacent secondary craters. The North American tektite strewn field, a widespread deposit of distal ejecta, is thought to be derived from the Chesapeake Bay impact, perhaps with a small contribution from the Toms Canyon impact. No ejecta field is known to be associated with the Montagnais impact. No immediate major extinction event is directly linked to any of these three impacts. There is evidence, however, that the Chesapeake Bay and Toms Canyon impacts helped initiate a long-term pulse of warm global climate, whose eventual dissipation coincided with an early Oligocene mass extinction event, 2 Ma after the impacts.

Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Ocea↗
USGS1981

Significant results from using earth observation satellites for mineral and energy resource exploration

A large number of Earth-observation satellites orbit our world several times each day, providing new information about the land and sea surfaces and the overlying thin layer of atmosphere that makes our planet unique. Meteorological satellites have had the longest history of experimental use and most are now considered operational. The geologic information collected by the Landsat, Polar Orbiting Geophysical Observatory (POGO), Magsat, Heat Capacity Mapping Mission (HCMM) and Seasat land and ocean observation systems is being thoroughly tested, and some of these systems are now approaching operational use. Landsat multispectral images provide views of large areas of the Earth under uniform lighting conditions and can be obtained at a variety of scales and formats. Not only do the Landsat data provide highly useful images showing surficial materials and structures such as folds and faults, but also measurements and computer-derived ratios of the brightness of different rock types, alteration zones, and mineral associations. These data have led to the finding of a variety of new ore deposits. In addition, the combination of Landsat digital data and aeromagnetic data has extended the use of Landsat as an exploration tool which can be used to readily relate surface features to subsurface anomalies. Magsat data, now being collected, are helping refine information on major crustal anomalies that were first recognized during the analysis of POGO data. The more nearly circular orbit, lower altitude, and increased sophistication of its vector magnetometer enable Magsat to provide more precise information than POGO. Information of this type is required to develop crustal models. Although Magsat is designed to operate for only 4–8 months, the number of orbits that it should be able to make will be sufficient to accomplish its mission and to record a major magnetic storm expected in 1980. HCMM is a two-band visible to near-IR (0.55–1.1 μm) and thermal infrared (10.2–12.5 μm) system designed to measure reflected solar energy, determine the heat capacity of rocks and to monitor soil moisture, thermal effluents, plant canopy temperatures and snow cover. Launched in April 1978, it is in sun-synchronous, circular orbit at an altitude of 620 km. It is a relatively low-resolution system with an instantaneous field of view (IFOV) of 500–600 m and a swath width of 716 km. However, the system is designed to detect objects in the range of 260°–340° K with a sensitivity (NEδT) of 0.4°K at 280°. Recording the thermal radiation of urban heat islands and high thermal inertia of quartzite strata in the Appalachian region are two examples of its land applications. Launched in June 1978, Seasat operated for only 100 days, but successfully acquired much information over both sea and land. The collection of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery and radar altimetry was particularly important to geologists. Although there are difficulties in processing and distributing these data in a timely manner, initial evaluations indicate that the radar imagery supplements Landsat data by increasing the spectral range and offering a different look angle. The radar altimeter provides accurate profiles over narrow strips of land (1 km wide) and has demonstrated usefulness in measuring icecap surfaces (Greenland, Iceland, and Antarctica). The Salar of Uyuni in southern Bolivia served as a calibration site for the altimeter and has enabled investigators to develop a land-based smoothing algorithm that is believed to increase the accuracy of the system to 10 cm. Data from the altimeter are currently being used to measure subsidence resulting from ground water withdrawal in the Phoenix-Tucson area.

Advances in Space Research↗
USGS2008

Mapping of Florida's coastal and marine resources: Setting priorities workshop

The importance of mapping habitats and bioregions as a means to improve resource management has become increasingly clear. Large areas of the waters surrounding Florida are unmapped or incompletely mapped, possibly hindering proper management and good decisionmaking. Mapping of these ecosystems is among the top priorities identified by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council in their Annual Science Research Plan. However, lack of prioritization among the coastal and marine areas and lack of coordination of agency efforts impede efficient, cost–effective mapping. A workshop on Mapping of Florida’s Coastal and Marine Resources was sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Southeastern Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). The workshop was held at the USGS Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC) in St. Petersburg, FL, on February 7-8, 2007. The workshop was designed to provide State, Federal, university, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the opportunity to discuss their existing data coverage and create a prioritization of areas for new mapping data in Florida. Specific goals of the workshop were multifold, including to: provide information to agencies on state-of-the-art technology for collecting data; inform participants of the ongoing mapping programs in waters off Florida; present the mapping needs and priorities of the State and Federal agencies and entities operating in Florida; work with State of Florida agencies to establish an overall priority for areas needing mapping; initiate discussion of a unified classification of habitat and bioregions; discuss and examine the need to standardize terminology and data collection/storage so that data, in particular habitat data, can be shared; identify opportunities for partnering and leveraging mapping efforts among agencies and entities; identify impediments and organizational gaps that hinder collection of data for mapping; seek innovative solutions to the primary obstacles identified; identify the steps needed to move mapping of Florida’s oceans and coasts forward, in preparation for a better coordinated, more cost-effective mapping program to allow State and Federal agencies to make better decisions on coastal-resource issues. Over 90 invited participants representing more than 30 State and Federal agencies, universities, NGOs, and private industries played a large role in the success of this two-day workshop. State of Florida agency participants created a ranked priority order for mapping 13 different regions around Florida. The data needed for each of the 13 priority regions were outlined. A matrix considering State and Federal priorities was created, utilizing input from all agencies. The matrix showed overlapping interests of the entities and will allow for partnering and leveraging of resources. The five most basic mapping needs were determined to be bathymetry, high-vertical resolution coastline for sea-level rise scenarios, shoreline change, subsurface geology, and benthic habitats at sufficient scale. There was a clear convergence on the need to coordinate mapping activities around the state. Suggestions for coordination included: creating a glossary of terms: a standard for specifying agency data-mapping needs; creating a geographic information officer (GIO) position or permanent organizing group to maintain communications established at this workshop and to maintain progress on the issues identified during the workshop. The person or group could develop a website, maintain a project-status matrix, develop a list of contacts, create links to legislative updates and links to funding sources; developing a web portal and one-stop/clearinghouse of data. There was general consensus on the need to adopt a single habitat classification system and a strategy to accommodate existing systems smoothly. Unresolved aspects of the systems warrant that a separate workshop would be needed to work out details. Participants recognized that the State priority list would necessarily be updated periodically. An annual review of priorities would facilitate information exchange, mapping activities updates, and re-allocation of funding among changing priorities. It was recognized that mapping of State waters would take billions of dollars and in light of tightening budgets there was need for processes that could be used to appropriate or leverage monies for mapping and reduce data-collection costs. Fourteen different avenues were explored. There was a clear consensus that the linking of public to private partnerships to support mapping was imperative, and ways to achieve this were discussed.

Florida↗
USGS2020

Fate and behavior tools related to inland spill response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in Federal science support

Executive Summary There is a growing body of tools available for science support for determining the fate and behavior of industrial and agricultural chemicals that are rapidly injected (“spilled”) into aquatic environments. A 2-day roundtable-style workshop was held by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Middleton, Wisconsin, in December 2017 to describe and explore existing Federal science support for spill fate and behavior tools used for inland spills, ongoing and new fate and behavior studies, and science gaps in planning and response tools as part of the USGS Midcontinent Region’s efforts to include spill response as part of its strategic plans. A total of 28 attendees representing a variety of Federal, State, and regional entities presented on programs and tools used in various aspects of spill response. Most programs and tools discussed were for spills in riverine environments but tools and applications for spills in lakes, on land surfaces, in urban storm sewer networks, and groundwater also were discussed. A primary workshop focus was to facilitate communication and increase potential for future collaboration among agencies for inland spill science support. The role and need for more USGS science support within the inland spill community was discussed. Enhanced communication is needed within the USGS and the U.S. Department of the Interior science programs, as well as within and among other agencies that do emergency planning and response. A main conclusion of the workshop was that there are untapped resources of the USGS outlined in the agency’s science strategy that could strengthen science support for fate and behavior tools in inland areas, especially in the Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins where large freshwater resources overlap with dense corridors of oil and hazardous substances, with transportation networks, and with large populations centers. Fate and behavior tools are being developed quickly for inland spill response by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with local and regional entities. Applicability of these tools ranges from planning and preparedness, to the early stages of spill response for protection of human life and property, and to the application of monitoring and models to assess the long-term consequences of spills. Key findings from the workshop, with an emphasis on potential further development of USGS science support, include the following: •The national and regional response to spills occurs within an established system that must be respected by all parties involved in spill response. The USGS’s role is to support spill responders who are physically working at a spill scene, deploying booms and using other efforts to contain and recover spilled materials. •The USGS has tools that have been used throughout spill response operations, from early response to recovery and restoration. Developing a more formal role for the USGS to participate in science support for inland spills on a consistent basis is a desired outcome. This will require the USGS to improve internal and external communication and would be best accomplished by assigning one or more coordinator positions within the agency to plan and oversee USGS spill-response efforts. More involvement of the USGS on National and Regional Response Teams, especially in the realm of the Science and Technology Subcommittees, will gofar in increasing external communication and integration of fate and behavior tools. •Rapid response to spills requires modeling and mapping of plumes and associated time-of-travel estimation for a range of stream sizes across the United States. Many existing models use USGS streamgage data and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Nearly all existing models would benefit from updated linkages to USGS StreamStats and its soon-to-be released time-of-travel estimates,real-time velocity, stream morphology, and slope data. Integrating USGS tools with those from other agencies could be done to better serve the larger spill response community. • A problem is that existing models to rapidly predict plume extent, as well as more followup/longer-term fate and transport models, can be unknown or unavailable to spill responders. Thus, creating and strengthening linkages among USGS scientists skilled at using these tools is needed to support spill response with the on-scene responders. • Research for inland spill fate and behavior done outside of an immediate spill response can assist with spill planning and preparedness by (1) revealing sites likely to experience spills in the future (high-risk sites) and (2) understanding how a spilled substance might behave under a range of environmental conditions. However, USGS research on this topic has been scarce and subject to funding availability. Examples include the 2010 Line 6B Spill release into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where the USGS provided science support for a variety of fate and behavior tools for stream and impoundment environments. A long-term research site in Bemidji, Minnesota, provides important insights into transformations and longevity of spilled oil in groundwater and groundwater-surface water interactions. • Linking stream models to other components of this inland environment, including groundwater, overland flow, and karst, is needed. Stream network data can be linked to underground conduits such as storm sewers and karst groundwater systems. Stream models can also be linked with geospatial data such as that contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interactive mapping tools. • The USGS is uniquely qualified to collect water-quality data during spills in the United States because of its many geographically dispersed water science centers, its knowledge and preparedness for flood measurement and documentation, and its cadre of skilled water-quality employees. Rapid-deployment gages, used for floods, could also be used for spills if they included spill-specific sensors. Coordinated expertise at USGS water and environmental science centers can be used for monitoring spill effects and for assessing risk to water quality and ecological communities. • Scientists at the USGS have proven capable of providing science coordination and technical assistance within the Incident Command Structure at the request of the lead on-scene coordinator. This external coordination, as well as internal communication within USGS Water, Hazards, and Ecosystems Mission Areas, could be improved by establishing and naming a USGS spills coordinator. Scott Morlock, Jo Ellen Hinck, and Faith Fitzpatrick are currently (2017) serving in informal coordination roles in addition to their traditional duties.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2014

Evaluation of a mass-balance approach to determine consumptive water use in northeastern Illinois

A principal component of evaluating and managing water use is consumptive use. This is the portion of water withdrawn for a particular use, such as residential, which is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment. The amount of consumptive use may be estimated by a water (mass)-balance approach; however, because of the difficulty of obtaining necessary data, its application typically is restricted to the facility scale. The general governing mass-balance equation is: Consumptive use = Water supplied - Return flows . This study explored a mass-balance field-based computation of consumptive use in a residential setting at the scale of a sanitary sewer service area (sewershed). In addition, the feasibility (cost and difficulty) and relative uncertainties (accuracies) associated with applying the approach at this scale were evaluated. The study was conducted during 2011–13 within a 3.5-square mile (mi 2 ) sewershed confined to a predominantly residential area of Elk Grove Village, Illinois. Following background evaluation of the geohydrologic setting, sewershed infrastructure, and possible components of supplied and returned water, the identified primary components were 1. public water deliveries by the Elk Grove Village Department of Public Works, 2. self-served groundwater withdrawals in an included unincorporated neighborhood with public sanitary sewer service, 3. return flows to the sanitary sewer system, and 4. direct return of water discharged from swimming pools to Salt Creek. Water volumes principally were reported for deliveries, measured for sanitary sewer returns by using an acoustic Doppler current-velocity meter, and estimated for domestic withdrawals and swimming pool discharges to storm sewers. All water volumes required some degree of estimation. Observation wells were installed adjacent to sewer pipelines (lines) to determine the depth of the water table relative to that of the sewer lines and to collect water samples for detection of optical brighteners, as they are routinely discharged as clotheswashing waste to sanitary sewers. These data provided qualitative information on gains (inflow and infiltration) and losses (exfiltration) of sewer flow by pipe leakage, which might otherwise not be considered in the sewer flow return measurements. Hydrographs of sewer flow also were evaluated to identify and estimate storm-associated inputs to sewer flow. The volume of sanitary sewer return flow (778 million gallons per year [Mgal/yr]) was determined to substantially exceed the volume of supplied water (566 Mgal/yr), thus, for this study setting, voiding the utility of the applied mass-balance approach for estimating consumptive water use. Mass-balance components, including sanitary sewer flow and supplied-water use, were estimated within reasonable limits of uncertainty. Evidence of a water table that is typically shallower than the area’s sewer lines, yet is sometimes depressed near more deeply buried sewer lines, suggests groundwater infiltration into the sewers contributes to the excess volume of return flow. Technical obstacles and project resources precluded accurate quantification of infiltration volumes and other gains and losses to sanitary sewer flow. As estimated from various simplified methods, a minimum of 26 percent of return flow measured in the sanitary sewer represented groundwater infiltration and stormwater inflow; separately, about 2 percent of return flow was estimated as inflow. On the basis of the alternative winter base-rate method, consumptive use in the sewershed was estimated as 13 percent, which compares favorably with that used by the State of Illinois for Lake Michigan allocation accounting (10 percent) and other States and Canadian Provinces in the Great Lakes region (generally 10-15 percent). The study also provided other findings considered useful to studies of water use and to performance evaluation of sanitary sewer infrastructure. In urban residential settings, the comparatively small volumes of nonpublic sources of water (self-supplied) and direct (nonsanitary) return flow potentially can be ignored in the estimation of consumptive use. An acoustic Doppler current-velocity meter can be used in sanitary sewers to accurately measure discharge and reasonably estimate storm-associated inflows. Hourly to daily patterns of water use can be readily identified and quantified in the return flow record for the sanitary sewers. Relative volumes of infiltration gains (and exfiltration losses) can be substantial, even in sewer systems of communities making significant investments in system upgrades to limit sewer line leakage. Monitoring of optical brighteners in groundwater (and potentially in sanitary sewer flow) can provide a useful means of identifying probable leakage from (and to) sewer lines. Accurate quantification of gains and losses to sanitary sewer flow at the sewershed scale will require additional research effort and technical advances. Under ideal conditions, accurate quantification of consumptive use at the sewershed scale by the described mass-balance approach might be possible. Under most prevailing conditions, quantification likely would be more costly and time consuming than that of the present study, given the freely contributed technical support of the host community and relatively appropriate conditions of the study area. Essentials to quantification of consumptive use are a fully cooperative community, storm and sanitary sewers that are separate, and newer sewer infrastructure and (or) a robust program for limiting infiltration, exfiltration, and inflow.

Illinois↗
USGS2003

Typing mineral deposits using their grades and tonnages in an artificial neural network

A test of the ability of a probabilistic neural network to classify deposits into types on the basis of deposit tonnage and average Cu, Mo, Ag, Au, Zn, and Pb grades is conducted. The purpose is to examine whether this type of system might serve as a basis for integrating geoscience information available in large mineral databases to classify sites by deposit type. Benefits of proper classification of many sites in large regions are relatively rapid identification of terranes permissive for deposit types and recognition of specific sites perhaps worthy of exploring further. Total tonnages and average grades of 1,137 well-explored deposits identified in published grade and tonnage models representing 13 deposit types were used to train and test the network. Tonnages were transformed by logarithms and grades by square roots to reduce effects of skewness. All values were scaled by subtracting the variable's mean and dividing by its standard deviation. Half of the deposits were selected randomly to be used in training the probabilistic neural network and the other half were used for independent testing. Tests were performed with a probabilistic neural network employing a Gaussian kernel and separate sigma weights for each class (type) and each variable (grade or tonnage). Deposit types were selected to challenge the neural network. For many types, tonnages or average grades are significantly different from other types, but individual deposits may plot in the grade and tonnage space of more than one type. Porphyry Cu, porphyry Cu-Au, and porphyry Cu-Mo types have similar tonnages and relatively small differences in grades. Redbed Cu deposits typically have tonnages that could be confused with porphyry Cu deposits, also contain Cu and, in some situations, Ag. Cyprus and kuroko massive sulfide types have about the same tonnages. Cu, Zn, Ag, and Au grades. Polymetallic vein, sedimentary exhalative Zn-Pb, and Zn-Pb skarn types contain many of the same metals. Sediment-hosted Au, Comstock Au-Ag, and low-sulfide Au-quartz vein types are principally Au deposits with differing amounts of Ag. Given the intent to test the neural network under the most difficult conditions, an overall 75% agreement between the experts and the neural network is considered excellent. Among the largestclassification errors are skarn Zn-Pb and Cyprus massive sulfide deposits classed by the neuralnetwork as kuroko massive sulfides—24 and 63% error respectively. Other large errors are the classification of 92% of porphyry Cu-Mo as porphyry Cu deposits. Most of the larger classification errors involve 25 or fewer training deposits, suggesting that some errors might be the result of small sample size. About 91% of the gold deposit types were classed properly and 98% of porphyry Cu deposits were classes as some type of porphyry Cu deposit. An experienced economic geologist would not make many of the classification errors that were made by the neural network because the geologic settings of deposits would be used to reduce errors. In a separate test, the probabilistic neural network correctly classed 93% of 336 deposits in eight deposit types when trained with presence or absence of 58 minerals and six generalized rock types. The overall success rate of the probabilistic neural network when trained on tonnage and average grades would probably be more than 90% with additional information on the presence of a few rock types.

Natural Resources Research↗
USGS2022

Fishway Entrance Palisade

This technical report summarizes the work that was conducted by the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), along with other project partners, on the Fishway Entrance Palisade (EP), a projected funded through the Department of Energy’s (DOE) funding opportunity titled ‘Innovative Solutions for Fish Passage at Hydropower Dams’ (DE‐FOA‐0001662). The period of performance ranged from September 1, 2018 through September 30, 2021. The EP is a novel fish passage engineering technology designed to provide more favorable entry conditions for fish and to reduce costs relative to conventional fishway auxiliary water systems (AWS). The EP project has four primary components. First, the Northeast United States Auxiliary Water Systems Database was created (Northeast Fishway Auxiliary Water Systems Database Section). The database, developed with material provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, contains information on fishway type (e.g., lift, Denil, pool and weir) and Auxiliary Water System (AWS) details (e.g., water conveyance method, diffuser type) for 60 hydroelectric sites in the region. Findings indicate that nearly 4 out of every 10 fishway in the region is a fish lift and approximately 1 out of every 4 is a Denil ladder. The remainder are a mix of vertical slot fishways, pool and weirs, and Ice Harbor fishways. Furthermore, over half of all AWS systems use floor diffusers to discharge the auxiliary (or attraction) water into the entrance of a fishway, whereas only 14% use wall diffusers. Second, limited experiments on a conventional AWS with live, actively migrating fish were conducted at the USGS Easter Ecological Science Center (EESC) S.O. Conte Research Laboratory (Conventional Auxiliary Water System Experiments Section). This study determined how water velocity through a wall diffuser, without turning vanes or timber baffles to distribute the flow, affects the behavior and passage of adult American shad, a conservative surrogate species for migratory fish on the East Coast. Two gross diffuser velocity treatments were examined, 0.5 ft/s and 1.0 ft/s. These wall diffuser velocities represented current (0.5 ft/s) and past (1.0 ft/s) design criteria guidelines set forth by the USFWS North Atlantic-Appalachian Region (Rojas 2020; USFWS 2019). Six trials with a total of 151 American Shad were conducted in June of 2019 for the two treatments. No differences in American shad passage efficiency were discovered between the two treatments, while approximately 3 in every 4 attempts were successful at passing the diffuser. While these results may appear to indicate that the generally accepted gross wall diffuser velocity criteria for American shad of 0.5 ft/s could be safely increased to 1.0 ft/s, further analysis is warranted. Furthermore, it is unknown how other migratory and resident fish species that traverse these structures would be impacted by such a change. Studying the wall diffuser hydraulics led to an important AWS observation. Without turning vanes or timber baffles in this study, doubling the diffuser area was insufficient at producing the type of flow field change one may expect by halving the gross diffuser velocity. Instead, the flow fields throughout each treatments study area were similar, which led to similar results in shad performance. This not only highlights the importance of installing flow guidance devices like turning vanes, but also to the importance of properly maintaining them, which can be costly. Third, more expansive experiments on the novel EP were conducted in the spring of 2019 and 2021 (Fishway Entrance Palisade Experiments). The goal of this study was to determine how adult American shad responded to a variety of conditions at a full-scale EP. A total of six treatments were examined by changing the average auxiliary channel velocity between 1.0 and 5.0 ft/s in intervals of 1.0 ft/s and by inserting/removing an entrance gate at the opening of the fishway. Thirty trials with a total of 1,273 shad were conducted over the two years. In all treatments, at least ~7 out of every 10 fish successfully passed the EP diffuser and swam into the entrance channel within the 3.5-hour long trial, highlighting the general effectiveness of the novel AWS technology. In both study years, lower velocities through the EP diffuser led to increased shad performance, though performance peaked for the 2 ft/s velocity treatment. This treatment condition represents an approximate six-fold increase in gross diffuser velocity relative to conventional auxiliary water systems, which in turn presents opportunities for cost savings (e.g., reduction in diffuser size). Shad performance, in general, was worse in 2019 than in 2021, potentially due to the different run timing when our trials were conducted (2019 trials occurred near the end of the migration season, unlike in 2021). Treatments in 2019 had approximately a 20% reduction in entrance efficiency by the trial end, including a 16.7% drop for the 3 ft/s velocity treatment in 2019 relative to 2021 (the only carryover treatment between years). Lastly, adding an entrance gate caused a significant delay to entry. The time to 25% entry raised ~20 minutes from the near instantaneous 25% entry that was reported for the other treatments conducted in the same year (2021). Though by the end of the 3.5-hour trial, the overall entrance efficiency nearly matched those of the other 2021 treatments. The fourth and final component of the EP project was an economic analysis that focused on the cost of attraction and environmental flows (Modeling Power Generation Losses Due to Environmental and Fish Passage Attraction Flows at a Run-Of-River Hydroelectric Operation in the Northeast). The study assessed the economic impact of meeting environmental flow requirements at a representative hydroelectric facility and fish lift in the Northeast. An initial finding of the study was that there is a paucity of published data on the costs of meeting attraction and environmental flows. This is due, in part, to the proprietary nature of this data. To explore the costs associated with these flows, three types of environmental flows were assessed: upstream fishway attraction flows, downstream fishway attraction flows, and habitat maintenance minimum flows. A physics-based model was developed and calibrated with three years of hourly generation and flow data as inputs. Gage flow inputs were adjusted and used to calculate power generated. To address hydrologic variability, the model was executed to simulate 30 years of historical flows. Results indicate that both interannual and seasonal climatic factors impact the costs of meeting environmental flow requirements. Generation potential is most strongly curtailed during dry years in terms of maximizing the capacity factor (the percent of time a plant generates at capacity). Dry years, and especially dry summers, have the most significant costs associated with mitigation flows. Of the three types of flows, habitat flows are most costly in terms of power production, followed by upstream attraction flows. Downstream attraction flows are least costly. This finding is the likely result of differences in both flow rates and duration of the seasonal requirement for each flow. Overall, environmental flows represented a 2-12% loss in annual generation, but losses during a dry summer can reach over 20%.

Final Technical Report↗
USGS2014

Investigating the importance of sediment resuspension in Alexandrium fundyense cyst population dynamics in the Gulf of Maine

Cysts of Alexandrium fundyense , a dinoflagellate that causes toxic algal blooms in the Gulf of Maine, spend the winter as dormant cells in the upper layer of bottom sediment or the bottom nepheloid layer and germinate in spring to initiate new blooms. Erosion measurements were made on sediment cores collected at seven stations in the Gulf of Maine in the autumn of 2011 to explore if resuspension (by waves and currents) could change the distribution of over-wintering cysts from patterns observed in the previous autumn; or if resuspension could contribute cysts to the water column during spring when cysts are viable. The mass of sediment eroded from the core surface at 0.4 Pa ranged from 0.05 kg m −2 near Grand Manan Island, to 0.35 kg m −2 in northern Wilkinson Basin. The depth of sediment eroded ranged from about 0.05 mm at a station with sandy sediment at 70 m water depth on the western Maine shelf, to about 1.2 mm in clayey–silt sediment at 250 m water depth in northern Wilkinson Basin. The sediment erodibility measurements were used in a sediment-transport model forced with modeled waves and currents for the period October 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011 to predict resuspension and bed erosion. The simulated spatial distribution and variation of bottom shear stress was controlled by the strength of the semi-diurnal tidal currents, which decrease from east to west along the Maine coast, and oscillatory wave-induced currents, which are strongest in shallow water. Simulations showed occasional sediment resuspension along the central and western Maine coast associated with storms, steady resuspension on the eastern Maine shelf and in the Bay of Fundy associated with tidal currents, no resuspension in northern Wilkinson Basin, and very small resuspension in western Jordan Basin. The sediment response in the model depended primarily on the profile of sediment erodibility, strength and time history of bottom stress, consolidation time scale, and the current in the water column. Based on analysis of wave data from offshore buoys from 1996 to 2012, the number of wave events inducing a bottom shear stress large enough to resuspend sediment at 80 m ranged from 0 to 2 in spring (April and May) and 0 to 10 in winter (October through March). Wave-induced resuspension is unlikely in water greater than about 100 m deep. The observations and model results suggest that a millimeter or so of sediment and associated cysts may be mobilized in both winter and spring, and that the frequency of resuspension will vary interannually. Depending on cyst concentration in the sediment and the vertical distribution in the water column, these events could result in a concentration in the water column of at least 10 4 cysts m −3 . In some years, resuspension events could episodically introduce cysts into the water column in spring, where germination is likely to be facilitated at the time of bloom formation. An assessment of the quantitative effects of cyst resuspension on bloom dynamics in any particular year requires more detailed investigation.

Bay Of Fundy;Grand Manan Island;Gulf Of Maine;Jord↗
USGS2010

Method for calculating self-noise spectra and operating ranges for seismographic inertial sensors and recorders

Understanding the performance of sensors and recorders is prerequisite to making appropriate use of them in seismology and earthquake engineering. This paper explores a critical aspect of instrument performance, the “self” noise level of the device and the amplitude range it can usefully record. Self noise limits the smallest signals, while instrument clipping level creates the upper limit (above which it either cannot produce signals or becomes unacceptably nonlinear). Where these levels fall, and the “operating range” between them, determines much of the instrument's viability and the applications for which it is appropriate. The representation of seismic-instrument self-noise levels and their effective operating ranges (cf., dynamic range) for seismological inertial sensors, recorders (data acquisition units, or DAUs), and integrated systems of sensors and recorders (data acquisition systems, or DASs) forces one to address an unnatural comparison between transient finite-bandwidth signals, such as earthquake records, and the instrument's self noise, an effectively stationary signal of infinite duration. In addition to being transient, earthquakes and other records of interest are characterized by a peak amplitude and generally a narrow, peaked spectral shape. Unfortunately, any power spectrum computed for such transient signals is ill defined, since the maximum of that spectrum depends strongly upon signal and record durations. In contrast, the noise floor of an instrument is approximately stationary and properly described by a power spectral density (PSD) or its root (rPSD). Put another way, earthquake records have units of amplitude ( e.g. , m/s 2 ) while PSDs have units of amplitude-squared per hertz ( e.g. , (m/s 2 ) 2 /Hz) and the rPSD has units of amplitude per root of hertz ( e.g. , (m/s 2 )/Hz 1/2 ). Thus, this incompatability is a conflict between earthquake (amplitude) and PSD (spectral density) units that requires one to make various assumptions before they can be compared. For purposes of instrument operational performance, we provide a means of evaluating signal and noise and the range between them in a manner representative of time-domain instrument performance. We call these “operating range diagrams” (ORDs), plots of instrument self noise and clipping level; the “operating range” is the range between these values. For frequency-domain performance we elect to show self noise as an rPSD that may be compared to another instrument's noise or to ambient Earth noise ( e.g. , Peterson 1993); however, to limit the number of arbitrary choices required to merge transient and stationary signals we do not compare the rPSD to transient signals in the frequency domain. Our solution for a time-domain comparison is not new but rather builds upon the consensus of the first and second Guidelines for Seismometer Testing workshops (Hutt et al. 2009) and long established practice in acoustics. We propose this method as a standard for characterizing seismic instruments, and it has been endorsed by the second workshop (Hutt et al. 2009, 2010) and the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Working Group (2008) and recent ANSS procurement specifications.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2007

Earthquake likelihood model testing

INTRODUCTION The Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) project aims to produce and evaluate alternate models of earthquake potential (probability per unit volume, magnitude, and time) for California. Based on differing assumptions, these models are produced to test the validity of their assumptions and to explore which models should be incorporated in seismic hazard and risk evaluation. Tests based on physical and geological criteria are useful but we focus on statistical methods using future earthquake catalog data only. We envision two evaluations: a test of consistency with observed data and a comparison of all pairs of models for relative consistency. Both tests are based on the likelihood method, and both are fully prospective ( i.e. , the models are not adjusted to fit the test data). To be tested, each model must assign a probability to any possible event within a specified region of space, time, and magnitude. For our tests the models must use a common format: earthquake rates in specified “bins” with location, magnitude, time, and focal mechanism limits. Seismology cannot yet deterministically predict individual earthquakes; however, it should seek the best possible models for forecasting earthquake occurrence. This paper describes the statistical rules of an experiment to examine and test earthquake forecasts. The primary purposes of the tests described below are to evaluate physical models for earthquakes, assure that source models used in seismic hazard and risk studies are consistent with earthquake data, and provide quantitative measures by which models can be assigned weights in a consensus model or be judged as suitable for particular regions. In this paper we develop a statistical method for testing earthquake likelihood models. A companion paper ( Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger 2007 , this issue) discusses the actual implementation of these tests in the framework of the RELM initiative. Statistical testing of hypotheses is a common task and a wide range of possible testing procedures exist. Jolliffe and Stephenson ( 2003 ) present different forecast verifications from atmospheric science, among them likelihood testing of probability forecasts and testing the occurrence of binary events. Testing binary events requires that for each forecasted event, the spatial, temporal and magnitude limits be given. Although major earthquakes can be considered binary events, the models within the RELM project express their forecasts on a spatial grid and in 0.1 magnitude units; thus the results are a distribution of rates over space and magnitude. These forecasts can be tested with likelihood tests. In general, likelihood tests assume a valid null hypothesis against which a given hypothesis is tested. The outcome is either a rejection of the null hypothesis in favor of the test hypothesis or a nonrejection, meaning the test hypothesis cannot outperform the null hypothesis at a given significance level. Within RELM, there is no accepted null hypothesis and thus the likelihood test needs to be expanded to allow comparable testing of equipollent hypotheses. To test models against one another, we require that forecasts are expressed in a standard format: the average rate of earthquake occurrence within pre-specified limits of hypocentral latitude, longitude, depth, magnitude, time period, and focal mechanisms. Focal mechanisms should either be described as the inclination of P -axis, declination of P -axis, and inclination of the T -axis, or as strike, dip, and rake angles. Schorlemmer and Gerstenberger ( 2007 , this issue) designed classes of these parameters such that similar models will be tested against each other. These classes make the forecasts comparable between models. Additionally, we are limited to testing only what is precisely defined and consistently reported in earthquake catalogs. Therefore it is currently not possible to test such information as fault rupture length or area, asperity location, etc. Also, to account for data quality issues, we allow for location and magnitude uncertainties as well as the probability that an event is dependent on another event. As we mentioned above, only models with comparable forecasts can be tested against each other. Our current tests are designed to examine grid-based models. This requires that any fault-based model be adapted to a grid before testing is possible. While this is a limitation of the testing, it is an inherent difficulty in any such comparative testing. Please refer to appendix B for a statistical evaluation of the application of the Poisson hypothesis to fault-based models. The testing suite we present consists of three different tests: L-Test, N-Test, and R-Test. These tests are defined similarily to Kagan and Jackson ( 1995 ). The first two tests examine the consistency of the hypotheses with the observations while the last test compares the spatial performances of the models.

Seismological Research Letters↗