Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “INformation”

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 1,477 records · Page 82Linked to original sources
USGS2008

Porphyry copper deposits of the world: Database and grade and tonnage models, 2008

This report is an update of earlier publications about porphyry copper deposits (Singer, Berger, and Moring, 2002; Singer, D.A., Berger, V.I., and Moring, B.C., 2005). The update was necessary because of new information about substantial increases in resources in some deposits and because we revised locations of some deposits so that they are consistent with images in GoogleEarth. In this report we have added new porphyry copper deposits and removed a few incorrectly classed deposits. In addition, some errors have been corrected and a number of deposits have had some information, such as grades, tonnages, locations, or ages revised. Colleagues have helped identify places where improvements were needed. Mineral deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments for a number of reasons including: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types are significantly different, and (2) many types occur in different geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral deposit models are the keystone in combining the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Too few thoroughly explored mineral deposits are available in most local areas for reliable identification of the important geoscience variables or for robust estimation of undiscovered deposits?thus we need mineral-deposit models. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features because the global models demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed and -constructed deposit models allow geologists to know from observed geologic environments the possible mineral deposit types that might exist, and allow economists to determine the possible economic viability of these resources in the region. Thus, mineral deposit models play the central role in transforming geoscience information to a form useful to policy makers. The foundation of mineral deposit models is information about known deposits. The purpose of this publication is to make this kind of information available in digital form for porphyry copper deposits. The consistently defined deposits in this file provide the foundation for grade and tonnage models included here and for mineral deposit density models (Singer and others, 2005: Singer, 2008).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Breeding Site and Territory Summary - 2007

The Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; hereafter references to willow flycatcher and flycatcher refer to E.t. extimus, except where specifically noted) is an endangered bird that breeds only in dense riparian habitats in parts of six Southwestern states (Arizona, New Mexico, southern California, extreme southern Nevada, southern Utah, and southwestern Colorado). Since 1993, hundreds of Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys have been conducted each year, and many new flycatcher breeding sites located. This document synthesizes the most current information available on all known Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites. This rangewide data synthesis was designed to meet two objectives: (1) identify all known Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding sites and (2) assemble data to estimate population size, location, habitat, and other information for all breeding sites, for as many years as possible, from 1993 through 2007. This report provides data summaries in terms of the number of flycatcher sites and the number of territories. When interpreting and using this information, it must be kept in mind that a 'site' is a geographic location where one or more willow flycatchers establishes a territory. Sites with unpaired territorial males are considered breeding sites, even if no nesting attempts were documented. A site is often a discrete patch of riparian habitat but may also be a cluster of riparian patches; there is no standardized definition for site, and its use varies within and among states. For example, five occupied habitat patches along a 10-km stretch of river might be considered five different sites in one state but only a single site in another state. This lack of standardization makes comparisons based on site numbers problematic. Researchers for this report generally deferred to statewide summary documents or to local managers and researchers when delineating a site for inclusion in the database. However, to avoid inflating the number of sites and to establish more consistent definitions of the term 'site', adjacent and nearby sites from statewide reports were sometimes considered as a single site for the purposes of the rangewide data summary. Any combining or splitting of sites at the rangewide level was done on a case-by-case basis. Because of differences in site definitions, one should not evaluate the relative importance of a geographic region (such as drainage, watershed, or state) simply according to the number of flycatcher sites. A 'territory' is an exclusive defended area within a breeding site. Although detailed monitoring studies have identified unpaired territorial males and polygynous males at some flycatcher breeding sites, for the purposes of this report a territory is equivalent to the exclusive breeding area of a pair of flycatchers. In general, the concept of territory is more similar among states and different investigators than site; thus, it is a more robust unit to use for summaries and comparisons. However, note that the definition of a polygynous territory is not consistent among states; a male polygynously paired with two females would be considered one territory in some states and two territories in other states. For each site, we referred to reports or spoke directly with researchers and managers to gather information such as management entity/agency, location (state, drainage, elevation), gross habitat type (native, exotic, or mixed; dominant tree species), and number of flycatcher territories. Synthesizing the information on more than 200 breeding sites is challenging because annual data-collection and survey-reporting requirements are not standardized rangewide, and the nature and degree of readily available information varies widely from state to state. This is particularly true for areas such as California, where there are many flycatcher sites but surveyors are not required to submit standardized flycatcher survey forms. The lack of c

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Preliminary surficial geologic map of the Newberry Springs 30' x 60' quadrangle, California

The Newberry Springs 30' x 60' quadrangle is located in the central Mojave Desert of southern California. It is split approximately into northern and southern halves by I-40, with the city of Barstow at its western edge and the town of Ludlow near its eastern edge. The map area spans lat 34°30 to 35° N. to long -116 °to -117° W. and covers over 1,000 km 2 . We integrate the results of surficial geologic mapping conducted during 2002-2005 with compilations of previous surficial mapping and bedrock geologic mapping. Quaternary units are subdivided in detail on the map to distinguish variations in age, process of formation, pedogenesis, lithology, and spatial interdependency, whereas pre-Quaternary bedrock units are grouped into generalized assemblages that emphasize their attributes as hillslope-forming materials and sources of parent material for the Quaternary units. The spatial information in this publication is presented in two forms: a spatial database and a geologic map. The geologic map is a view (the display of an extracted subset of the database at a given time) of the spatial database; it highlights key aspects of the database and necessarily does not show all of the data contained therein. The database contains detailed information about Quaternary geologic unit composition, authorship, and notes regarding geologic units, faults, contacts, and local vegetation. The amount of information contained in the database is too large to show on a single map, so a restricted subset of the information was chosen to summarize the overall nature of the geology. Refer to the database for additional information. Accompanying the spatial data are the map documentation and spatial metadata. The map documentation (this document) describes the geologic setting and history of the Newberry Springs map sheet, summarizes the age and physical character of each map unit, and describes principal faults and folds. The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) compliant metadata provides detailed information about the digital files and file structure of the spatial data.

California↗
USGS2011

Proceedings of the Klamath Basin Science Conference, Medford, Oregon, February 1-5, 2010

This report presents the proceedings of the Klamath Basin Science Conference (February 2010). A primary purpose of the meeting was to inform and update Klamath Basin stakeholders about areas of scientific progress and accomplishment during the last 5 years. Secondary conference objectives focused on the identification of outstanding information needs and science priorities as they relate to whole watershed management, restoration ecology, and possible reintroduction of Pacific salmon associated with the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Information presented in plenary, technical, breakout, and poster sessions has been assembled into chapters that reflect the organization, major themes, and content of the conference. Chapter 1 reviews the major environmental issues and resource management and other stakeholder needs of the basin. Importantly, this assessment of information needs included the possibility of large-scale restoration projects in the future and lessons learned from a case study in South Florida. Other chapters (2-6) summarize information about key components of the Klamath Basin, support conceptual modeling of the aquatic ecosystem (Chapter 7), and synthesize our impressions of the most pressing science priorities for management and restoration. A wealth of information was presented at the conference and this has been captured in chapters addressing environmental setting and human development of the basin, hydrology, watershed processes, fishery resources, and potential effects from climate change. The final chapter (8) culminates in a discussion of many specific research priorities that relate to and bookend the broader management needs and restoration goals identified in Chapter 1. In many instances, the conferees emphasized long-term and process-oriented approaches to watershed science in the basin as planning moves forward.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Science strategy for Core Science Systems in the U.S. Geological Survey, 2013-2023

Core Science Systems is a new mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that grew out of the 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017.” This report describes the vision for this USGS mission and outlines a strategy for Core Science Systems to facilitate integrated characterization and understanding of the complex earth system. The vision and suggested actions are bold and far-reaching, describing a conceptual model and framework to enhance the ability of USGS to bring its core strengths to bear on pressing societal problems through data integration and scientific synthesis across the breadth of science. The context of this report is inspired by a direction set forth in the 2007 Science Strategy. Specifically, ecosystem-based approaches provide the underpinnings for essentially all science themes that define the USGS. Every point on earth falls within a specific ecosystem where data, other information assets, and the expertise of USGS and its many partners can be employed to quantitatively understand how that ecosystem functions and how it responds to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Every benefit society obtains from the planet—food, water, raw materials to build infrastructure, homes and automobiles, fuel to heat homes and cities, and many others, are derived from or effect ecosystems. The vision for Core Science Systems builds on core strengths of the USGS in characterizing and understanding complex earth and biological systems through research, modeling, mapping, and the production of high quality data on the nation’s natural resource infrastructure. Together, these research activities provide a foundation for ecosystem-based approaches through geologic mapping, topographic mapping, and biodiversity mapping. The vision describes a framework founded on these core mapping strengths that makes it easier for USGS scientists to discover critical information, share and publish results, and identify potential collaborations that transcend all USGS missions. The framework is designed to improve the efficiency of scientific work within USGS by establishing a means to preserve and recall data for future applications, organizing existing scientific knowledge and data to facilitate new use of older information, and establishing a future workflow that naturally integrates new data, applications, and other science products to make it easier and more efficient to conduct interdisciplinary research over time. Given the increasing need for integrated data and interdisciplinary approaches to solve modern problems, leadership by the Core Science Systems mission will facilitate problem solving by all USGS missions in ways not formerly possible. The report lays out a strategy to achieve this vision through three goals with accompanying objectives and actions. The first goal builds on and enhances the strengths of the Core Science Systems mission in characterizing and understanding the earth system from the geologic framework to the topographic characteristics of the land surface and biodiversity across the nation. The second goal enhances and develops new strengths in computer and information science to make it easier for USGS scientists to discover data and models, share and publish results, and discover connections between scientific information and knowledge. The third goal brings additional focus to research and development methods to address complex issues affecting society that require integration of knowledge and new methods for synthesizing scientific information. Collectively, the report lays out a strategy to create a seamless connection between all USGS activities to accelerate and make USGS science more efficient by fully integrating disciplinary expertise within a new and evolving science paradigm for a changing world in the 21st century.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

A Markov chain analysis of the movements of juvenile salmonids, including sockeye salmon, in the forebay of McNary Dam, Washington and Oregon, 2006-09

Passage and survival data were collected at McNary Dam between 2006 and 2009. These data have provided critical information for resource managers to implement structural and operational changes designed to improve the survival of juvenile salmonids as they migrate past the dam. Much of the valuable information collected at McNary Dam was in the form of three-dimensional (hereafter referred to as 3-D) tracks of fish movements in the forebay. These data depicted the behavior of multiple species (in three dimensions) during different diel periods, spill conditions, powerhouse operations, and testing of the surface bypass structures (temporary spillway weirs; TSWs). One of the challenges in reporting 3-D results is presenting the information in a manner that allows interested parties to summarize the behavior of many fish over many different conditions across multiple years. To accomplish this, we used a Markov chain analysis to characterize fish movement patterns in the forebay of McNary Dam. The Markov chain analysis allowed us to numerically summarize the behavior of fish in the forebay. This report is the second report published in 2012 that uses this analytical method. The first report included only fish released as part of the annual studies conducted at McNary Dam. This second report includes sockeye salmon that were released as part of studies conducted by the Chelan and Grant County Public Utility Districts at mid-Columbia River dams. The studies conducted in the mid-Columbia used the same transmitters as were used for McNary Dam studies, but transmitter pulse width was different between studies. Additionally, no passive integrated transponder tags were implanted in sockeye salmon. Differences in transmitter pulse width resulted in lower detection probabilities for sockeye salmon at McNary Dam. The absence of passive integrated transponder tags prevented us from determining if fish passed the powerhouse through the juvenile bypass system (JBS) or turbines. To facilitate comparison among species in this report, we combined JBS and turbine passage for yearling Chinook salmon, steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon even though we were able to differentiate between passage through the JBS or turbines for these three species. Information on passage proportions through the JBS and turbines can be found in the first report. Numerically summarizing the behavior of juvenile salmonids in the forebay of McNary Dam using the Markov chain analysis allowed us to confirm what had been previously summarized using visualization software. For example, within the powerhouse region, passage proportions among the three powerhouse areas were often greater in the southern and middle areas of the powerhouse compared to the northern area of the powerhouse for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon. The opposite generally was observed for steelhead. The results of this analysis also allowed us to confirm and quantify the extent of milling behavior that was observed for steelhead. For fish that were first detected in the powerhouse region, less than 0.10 of the steelhead, on average, passed within each of the powerhouse areas. Instead, steelhead transitioned to adjoining areas in the spillway before passing the dam. In comparison, greater than 0.20 of the Chinook salmon passed within each of the powerhouse areas. Less milling behavior was observed for all species for fish that first approached the spillway. Compared to the powerhouse areas, a higher proportion of fish, regardless of species, passed the spillway areas and fewer transitioned to adjoining areas in the powerhouse. In addition to quantifying what had been previously speculated about the behavior of fish in the forebay of McNary Dam, the Markov chain analysis refined our understanding of how fish behavior and passage can be influenced by changes to the operations and structure of McNary Dam. For example, the addition of TSWs to the spillway area clearly influenced the passage of fish. Previous results have been reported showing that TSWs increased passage through non-turbine routes and the fish-track videos indicated, in general, how fish behaved before passing the TSWs. However, the analysis presented in this report allowed us to better understand how fish transitioned across the face of the dam before passing the TSWs and resulted in a quantitative way to measure the effect of moving the location of the TSWs from year to year. Installation of the TSWs in bays 22 and 20 clearly increased passage proportions through the southern one-third of the spillway area for all species, most significantly for steelhead. When the TSWs were moved to bays 19 and 20 in 2008, overall passage through the southern one-third of the spillway remained higher than 2006, but decreased from what was observed in 2007. Shifting the TSWs to the north decreased the proportion of fish passing through the TSWs and increased the number of fish that transitioned to adjoining areas before passing the dam. Perhaps the most interesting new information to come out of the two-step Markov chain analysis relates to how the performance of the TSWs was influenced by their proximity to the powerhouse. During 2007, the highest proportion of fish passing through TSW 22 was for fish that transitioned from the powerhouse area. In contrast, a relatively low proportion of fish passed through TSW 20 after coming from the powerhouse area. Instead, the proportion of fish that passed TSW 20 after coming from the northern part of the spillway was twice as high as the proportion of fish that passed through TSW 20 after coming from the powerhouse. During 2008, the TSW in bay 22 was moved to bay 19, leaving the TSW in bay 20 as the one closest to the powerhouse. As was the case when a TSW was located in bay 22, the proportion of fish passing through TSW 20 after coming from the powerhouse was higher than the proportion of fish passing TSW 20 after coming from the northern part of the spillway. Passage proportions for fish passing through TSW 19, the farthest north of the two TSWs during 2008, was higher for fish that came from the northern part of the spillway compared to the proportion of fish that passed through TSW 19 after coming from the powerhouse. The Markov chain analysis provided a mathematical way to characterize fish behavior in the forebay of McNary Dam and helped refine our understanding of how fish movements were influenced by operational and structural changes at the dam. The numerical information used to quantify the behavior of fish also can be used to construct simulations to examine how proposed fish passage structures might influence passage of juvenile salmonids. To demonstrate this, we used the results of the Markov chain analysis to examine how a virtual fish collector located in the center of the powerhouse might influence passage of juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam.

Oregon;Washington↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment— Climate and weather topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western U.S. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (hereinafter, “Needs”) for informing the actions proposed under the five topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ), Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed four Needs identified under the Climate and Weather topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs broadly focused on understanding the potential effects of climate change on vegetative resilience to inform restoration of sagebrush rangelands. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (hereinafter, “Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 92 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Climate and Weather topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: studies of the complex set of climatic relationships that influence sagebrush rangeland restoration and seeding success; the identification of seed collection areas across the range of environmental variability inhabited by target restoration species; and develop predictive models to assess targeted restoration species’ responses to mid-century climatic conditions. The Need addressed poorly was the identification of native plant species, genotypes and ecotypes, and seed mixes that may be resilient to a changing climate. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan, and can inform updates of other relevant science planning documents as needed.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1988

Borehole geophysics applied to ground-water investigations

The purpose of this manual is to provide hydrologists, geologists, and others who have the necessary training with the basic information needed to apply the most useful borehole-geophysical-logging techniques to the solution of problems in ground-water hydrology. Geophysical logs can provide information on the construction of wells and on the character of the rocks and fluids penetrated by those wells, in addition to changes in the character of these factors with time. The response of well logs is caused by: petrophysical factors; the quality; temperature, and pressure of interstitial fluids; and ground-water flow. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the analog records and computer analysis of digitized logs are used to derive geohydrologic information. This information can then be extrapolated vertically within a well and laterally to other wells using logs. The physical principles by which the mechanical and electronic components of a logging system measure properties of rocks, fluids and wells, and the principles of measurement need to be understood to correctly interpret geophysical logs. Planning the logging operation involves selecting the equipment and the logs most likely to provide the needed information. Information on well construction and geohydrology are needed to guide this selection. Quality control of logs is an important responsibility of both the equipment operator and log analyst and requires both calibration and well-site standardization of equipment. Logging techniques that are widely used in ground-water hydrology or that have significant potential for application to this field include: spontaneous potential, resistance, resistivity, gamma, gamma spectrometry, gamma-gamma, neutron, acoustic velocity, acoustic televiewer, caliper, and fluid temperature, conductivity, and flow. The following topics are discussed for each of these techniques: principles and instrumentation, calibration and standardization, volume of investigation, extraneous effects, and interpretation and applications.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1989

Functional requirements of computer systems for the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 1988-97

Investigating the occurrence, quantity, quality, distribution, and movement of the Nation 's water resources is the principal mission of the U.S. Geological Survey 's Water Resources Division. Reports of these investigations are published and available to the public. To accomplish this mission, the Division requires substantial computer technology to process, store, and analyze data from more than 57,000 hydrologic sites. The Division 's computer resources are organized through the Distributed Information System Program Office that manages the nationwide network of computers. The contract that provides the major computer components for the Water Resources Division 's Distributed information System expires in 1991. Five work groups were organized to collect the information needed to procure a new generation of computer systems for the U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Each group was assigned a major Division activity and asked to describe its functional requirements of computer systems for the next decade. The work groups and major activities are: (1) hydrologic information; (2) hydrologic applications; (3) geographic information systems; (4) reports and electronic publishing; and (5) administrative. The work groups identified 42 functions and described their functional requirements for 1988, 1992, and 1997. A few new functions such as Decision Support Systems and Executive Information Systems, were identified, but most are the same as performed today. Although the number of functions will remain about the same, steady growth in the size, complexity, and frequency of many functions is predicted for the next decade. No compensating increase in the Division 's staff is anticipated during this period. To handle the increased workload and perform these functions, new approaches will be developed that use advanced computer technology. The advanced technology is required in a unified, tightly coupled system that will support all functions simultaneously. The new approaches and expanded use of computers will require substantial increases in the quantity and sophistication of the Division 's computer resources. The requirements presented in this report will be used to develop technical specifications that describe the computer resources needed during the 1990's. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

1997 flood tracking chart for the Red River of the North basin

The flood tracking chart for the Red River of the North Basin can be used by local citizens and emergency response personnel to determine the latest river stage. By comparing the current stage (water-surface elevation above some datum) and predicted flood crest to the recorded peak stages of previous floods, emergency response personnel and residents can make informed decisions concerning the threat to life and property. The flood tracking chart shows a map of the basin with the location of major real-time streamflow-gaging stations in the basin. Click on a station in the map or in the list below the map. Streamflow and stage information for the last 7 days, current stage relative to recorded peak stages, and streamflow for the previous 18 months are provided in graphic form, along with information such as station location and length of record. The National Weather Service has direct access to all information collected by the USGS for use in their forecasting models and routinely broadcasts the forecast information to the news media and on shortwave radio. The radio frequencies are 162.400 MHz (megahertz) in Petersburg, N. Dak., and Detroit Lakes, Minn.; 162.425 MHz in Webster, N. Dak., and Bemidji, Minn.; 162.450 MHz in Roosevelt, Minn.; 162.475 MHz in Grand Forks and Amenia, N. Dak.; and 162.550 MHz in Thief River Falls, Minn. To use the flood tracking chart for a particular property, determine the approximate elevation of the threatened property and the elevation of the gaging station that is closest to the threatened property. For example, most people in Grand Forks, N. Dak., probably will use the Red River of the North at Grand Forks station. Record the flood elevation for the gaging station. Compare the flood elevation to the elevation of the property to immediately know if the property has an impending threat of flooding. One must be cautioned by the fact that the surface of flowing water is not flat but has a slope. Therefore, the water-surface elevation near a threatened property might not be the same as the river stages at the gaging stations. The network of river-gaging stations in the Red River of the North Basin is operated by the USGS in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the North Dakota State Water Commission, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Southeast Cass Water Resources District, the Cass County Joint Water Resource District, the Red River Joint Water Resource Board, and the Red River Watershed Management Board. For more information about USGS programs in North Dakota, contact the District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, North Dakota District, at (701) 250-7400.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1999

Assessing environmental contaminant threats to lands and biota managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) is a standardized approach for documenting and assessing threats posed by environmental contaminants to lands and biota managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD) developed the CAP cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Division of Environmental Contaminants (DEC). The CAP involves two parts, a retrospective analysis, and if needed, field-sampling. The retrospective analysis documents the ecological characteristics, management goals, areas potentially vulnerable to hazardous substance spills, and habitats of importance for the DOI land unit of interest. In addition, contaminant transport pathways and sources (point and nonpoint) are identified and potentially contaminated areas delineated. The second part of the CAP involves developing field-sampling plans to confirm the presence or effects of contaminants identified in the retrospective analysis. Field-sampling deemed necessary to confirm contaminant issues on national wildlife refuges identified through the retrospective analyses of CAP is handled as part of DECs on- and off-refuge investigation programs. By gathering and interpreting information, the CAP generates valuable insight regarding contaminant issues that may be affecting refuges. Findings from the CAP can help FWS stewards select options that reduce contaminant impacts on the habitats and species that they manage. Information synthesized through the CAP also contributes to the development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans mandated through the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. To insure that this information has the maximum benefit to the agency, DEC and the BEST Program jointly developed a data management system to support the CAP. This system facilitates information acquisition from remote sources and serves as a permanent data repository. Thus, the system documents CAP findings, enhances FWS's institutional memory, and supports informed management decisions. This document is a user's guide, intended for use by FWS field biologists responsible for applying the retrospective analysis portion of the CAP to FWS national wildlife refuge lands and provides instructions for entering information into the data management system. This is the third revision of the original document written in 1993 by scientists of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Public outreach and communications of the Alaska Volcano Observatory during the 2005-2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano: Chapter 27 in The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska

The 2005-6 eruption of Augustine Volcano in the Cook Inlet region, Alaska, greatly increased public desire for volcano hazard information, as this eruption was the most significant in Cook Inlet since 1992. In response to this heightened concern, the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) increased ongoing efforts to deliver specific eruption-focused information to communities nearest to the volcano, created a public communications strategy to assist staff with managing requests, and used the recently upgraded AVO Web site as a primary information-delivery path. During the eruption, AVO responded to a minimum of ~1,700 individual requests for information from the media, the public, and other organizations with responsibilities associated with volcanic activity in Alaska; requests were received both as phone calls to the observatory and e-mail stemming from the AVO Web site. Staff also delivered approximately two dozen Augustine-specific presentations and gave nearly three dozen tours of the AVO Anchorage Operations Center in Anchorage. This intensity of public interaction was markedly higher than during noneruptive periods. During the Augustine unrest and eruption, AVO also refined its internal communication procedures, instituted and maintained up-to-date and concise talking points concerning the most recent and relevant volcanic activity and hazards, and created a media management plan to assist staff in working with members of the media. These items aided staff in maintaining a consistent message concerning the eruption, potential hazards, and our response activities. The AVO Web site, with its accompanying database, is the backbone of AVO's external and internal communications. This was the first Cook Inlet volcanic eruption with a public expectation of real-time access to data, updates, and hazards information over the Internet. In March 2005, AVO improved the Web site from individual static pages to a dynamic, database-driven site. This new system provided quick and straightforward access to the latest information for (1) staff within the observatory, (2) emergency managers from State and local governments and organizations, (3) the media, and (4) the public. From mid-December 2005 through April 2006, the AVO Web site served more than 45 million Web pages and about 5.5 terabytes of data.

Alaska↗
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↗
USGS2013

Flood-inundation maps for an 8.9-mile reach of the South Fork Little River at Hopkinsville, Kentucky

Digital flood-inundation maps for an 8.9-mile reach of South Fork Little River at Hopkinsville, Kentucky, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Hopkinsville Community Development Services. 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 and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage at South Fork Little River at Highway 68 By-Pass at Hopkinsville, Kentucky (station no. 03437495). Current conditions for the USGS streamgage may be obtained online at the USGS National Water Information System site ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory?agency_code=USGS&site_no=03437495 ). In addition, the information has been provided to the National Weather Service (NWS) for incorporation into their Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service flood warning system ( http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ ). The NWS forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often co-located at USGS streamgages. The forecasted peak-stage information, also available on the Internet, 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 South Fork Little River reach by using HEC-RAS, a one-dimensional step-backwater model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the most current (2012) stage-discharge relation at the South Fork Little River at Highway 68 By-Pass at Hopkinsville, Kentucky, streamgage and measurements collected during recent flood events. The calibrated model was then used to calculate 13 water-surface profiles for a sequence of flood stages, most at 1-foot intervals, referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from a stage near bank full to the estimated elevation of the 1.0-percent annual exceedance probability flood at the streamgage. To delineate the flooded area at each interval flood stage, the simulated water-surface profiles were combined with a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the study area by using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. The DEM consisted of bare-earth elevations within the study area and was derived from a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) dataset having a 3.28-foot horizontal resolution. These flood-inundation maps, along with online information regarding current stages from USGS streamgage and forecasted stages from the NWS, provide emergency management and local residents with critical information for flood response activities such as evacuations, road closures, and post-flood recovery efforts.

Kentucky↗
USGS2014

Flood-inundation maps for the East Fork White River near Bedford, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for an 1.8-mile reach of the East Fork White River near Bedford, Indiana (Ind.) were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation. 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 and depth of flooding corresponding to selectedwater levels (stages) at USGS streamgage 03371500, East Fork White River near Bedford, Ind. Current conditions for estimating near-real-time areas of inundation using USGS streamgage information may be obtained on the Internet at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/in/nwis/uv?site_no=03371500. In addition, 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 colocated with USGS streamgages, including the East Fork White River near Bedford, Ind. NWS-forecasted peak-stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. For this study, flood profiles were computed for the East Fork White River reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the most current stage-discharge relations at USGS streamgage 03371500, East Fork White River near Bedford, Ind., and documented high-water marks from the flood of June 2008. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to determine 20 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from bankfull to the highest stage of the current stage-discharge rating curve. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system (GIS) digital elevation model (DEM, derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data having a 0.593-foot vertical accuracy) in order to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with Internet information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage near Bedford, Ind., and forecasted stream stages from the NWS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for postflood recovery eforts.

Indiana↗
USGS2013

Flood-inundation maps for a 6.5-mile reach of the Kentucky River at Frankfort, Kentucky

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 6.5-mile reach of Kentucky River at Frankfort, Kentucky, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Frankfort Office of Emergency Management. 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 and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage Kentucky River at Lock 4 at Frankfort, Kentucky (station no. 03287500). Current conditions for the USGS streamgage may be obtained online at the USGS National Water Information System site (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory?agency_code=USGS&site_no=03287500). 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 colocated at USGS streamgages. The forecasted peak-stage information, also available on the Internet, 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 Kentucky River reach by using HEC–RAS, a one-dimensional step-backwater model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the most current (2013) stage-discharge relation for the Kentucky River at Lock 4 at Frankfort, Kentucky, in combination with streamgage and high-water-mark measurements collected for a flood event in May 2010. The calibrated model was then used to calculate 26 water-surface profiles for a sequence of flood stages, at 1-foot intervals, referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from a stage near bankfull to the elevation that breached the levees protecting the City of Frankfort. To delineate the flooded area at each interval flood stage, the simulated water-surface profiles were combined with a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area by using geographic information system software. The DEM consisted of bare-earth elevations within the study area and was derived from a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) dataset having a 5.0-foot horizontal resolution and an accuracy of 0.229 foot. The availability of these maps, along with Internet information regarding current stages from USGS streamgages and forecasted stages from the NWS, provides emergency management personnel and local residents with critical information for flood response activities such as evacuations, road closures, and postflood recovery efforts.

Kentucky↗