Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Interagency Report”

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 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Hazard information management, interagency coordination, and impacts of the 2005-2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano: Chapter 28 in The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska

Dissemination of volcano-hazard information in coordination with other Federal, State, and local agencies is a primary responsibility of the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO). During the 2005-6 eruption of Augustine Volcano in Alaska, AVO used existing interagency relationships and written protocols to provide hazard guidance before, during, and after eruptive events. The 2005-6 eruption was notable because of the potential for volcanogenic tsunami, which required establishment of a new procedure for alerts of possible landslide-induced tsunami in Cook Inlet. Despite repeated ash-cloud generating explosions and far-traveled ash clouds, impacts from the event were relatively minor. Primary economic losses occurred when air carriers chose to avoid flights into potentially unsafe conditions. Post-eruption evaluations by agencies involved in the response indicated weaknesses in information centralization and availability of specific information regarding ash fall hazards in real time.

Alaska↗
USGS2016

Climate Change Science Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in New England

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has actively pursued research in the effects of climate change on the hydrology of New England. Ongoing focus areas of climate change science activities of the USGS in New England include the following: • Hydrologic climate-response data (initiating or expanding long-term hydrologic climate-response data collection networks to detect and monitor climate-related changes in hydrology) • Relations between historical climatic and hydrologic variation (investigating historic relations between long-term climatic variation and hydrologic variation and connecting these relations to future conditions as forecasted by the Interagency Panel on Climate Change (Nakićenović and others, 2000) • Hydrologic change on natural and human (incorporating climate change scenarios into assessments of how flows in streams or water levels in aquifers may change) • Relations between climatic and hydrologic variation (characterizing impacts of climate change on floods and droughts, the long-term availability of water supplies for societal and natural uses in response to climate changes) • Developing tools to forecast ecosystem change and water resources management (developing regionally consistent tools for forecasting ecosystem change and resource management) This fact sheet presents recent climate change investigations of the USGS in New England using selected recent publications. These publications highlight the broad spectrum of expertise and commitment to understanding the relations of climate change and water resources in New England.

New England↗
USGS2009

Surveillance plan for the early detection of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in migratory birds in the United States: surveillance year 2009

Executive Summary: This Surveillance Plan (Plan) describes plans for conducting surveillance of wild birds in the United States and its Territories and Freely-Associated States to provide for early detection of the introduction of the H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) subtype of the influenza A virus by migratory birds during the 2009 surveillance year, spanning the period of April 1, 2009 - March 31, 2010. The Plan represents a continuation of surveillance efforts begun in 2006 under the Interagency Strategic Plan for the Early Detection of H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Wild Migratory Birds (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior, 2006). The Plan sets forth sampling plans by: region, target species or species groups to be sampled, locations of sampling, sample sizes, and sampling approaches and methods. This Plan will be reviewed annually and modified as appropriate for subsequent surveillance years based on evaluation of information from previous years of surveillance, changing patterns and threats of H5N1 HPAI, and changes in funding availability for avian influenza surveillance. Specific sampling strategies will be developed accordingly within each of six regions, defined here as Alaska, Hawaiian/Pacific Islands, Lower Pacific Flyway (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona), Central Flyway, Mississippi Flyway, and Atlantic Flyway.

General Information Product↗
USGS2014

Synthesis of studies in the fall low-salinity zone of the San Francisco Estuary, September-December 2011

In fall 2011, a large-scale investigation (fall low-salinity habitat investigation) was implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the Interagency Ecological Program to explore hypotheses about the ecological role of low-salinity habitat in the San Francisco Estuary—specifically, hypotheses about the importance of fall low-salinity habitat to the biology of delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus , a species endemic to the San Francisco Estuary and listed as threatened or endangered under federal and state endangered species legislation. The Interagency Ecological Program is a consortium of 10 agencies that work together to develop a better understanding of the ecology of the Estuary and the effects of the State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project operations on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the San Francisco Estuary. The fall low-salinity habitat investigation constitutes one of the actions stipulated in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative issued with the 2008 Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which called for adaptive management of fall Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta outflow following “wet” and “above normal” water years to alleviate jeopardy to delta smelt and adverse modification of delta smelt critical habitat. The basic hypothesis of the adaptive management of fall low-salinity habitat is that greater outflows move the low-salinity zone (salinity 1–6), an important component of delta smelt habitat, westward and that moving the low-salinity zone westward of its position in the fall of recent years will benefit delta smelt, although the specific mechanisms providing such benefit are uncertain. An adaptive management plan was prepared to guide implementation of the adaptive management of fall low-salinity habitat and to reduce uncertainty. This report has three major objectives: • To provide a summary of the results from the first year of coordinated fall low-salinity habitat studies and monitoring. • To provide a synthesis of the results of the fall low-salinity habitat studies and other ongoing research and monitoring, to determine if the available information supports the hypotheses behind the adaptive management of fall low-salinity habitat as set forth in the adaptive management plan. • To begin to put the results from the fall low-salinity habitat studies into context within the larger body of knowledge regarding the San Francisco Estuary and, in particular, the upper San Francisco Estuary, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun Bay, and associated embayments. The basic approach of this report is to evaluate predictions derived from the hypotheses included in the conceptual model developed within the adaptive management plan. All available data from studies and monitoring conducted in fall 2011 and similar data from fall 2006, which was the most recent wet year preceding 2011, were considered. Data from 2005 and 2010 were also considered, to include the conditions antecedent to those years. Many of the predictions either could not be evaluated with the data available, or the needed data were not collected. Most of the predictions that could be addressed involved either the abiotic habitat components (that is, the physical environment) or delta smelt responses. In general, the fall low-salinity habitat investigation has been largely inconclusive as of the writing of this report. This is not to be unexpected in the first year of what is intended to be a multi-year adaptive-management effort. This report can be viewed as the first chapter of a “living document” that is to be continually updated as part of the adaptive management cycle. The results of this report, especially predictions with insufficient data for evaluation, indicate a number of science-based approaches to improve the fall low-salinity habitat investigations: • Develop a method of measuring “hydrodynamic complexity.” This concept is central to a number of the predictions that could not be evaluated. • Determine if wind speed warrants a stand-alone prediction. The wind-speed prediction is directly related to the turbidity predictions, and wind is only one of several factors important for determining turbidity. • Determine the correct spatial and temporal scale or scales necessary for monitoring and for studies to address the predicted abiotic and biotic responses. Many of the assessments in this report were based on monthly sampling of dynamic habitat components, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, that can change on daily scales. • Address the nutrient predictions as part of developing a phytoplankton production model that includes nutrient cycling and other important processes, if feasible. At a minimum develop a mechanistic conceptual model to support more processed-based interpretations of data or design of new studies, rather than making simple predictions of increase or decrease. • Determine if studies of predation rates are feasible in areas where there are delta smelt.

California↗
USGS2004

Suwannee river basin and estuary integrated science workshop: September 22-24, 2004 Cedar Key, Florida

In response to the growing number of environmental concerns in the mostly pristine Suwannee River Basin and the Suwannee River Estuary system, the States of Florida and Georgia, the Federal government, and other local organizations have identified the Suwannee River as an ecosystem in need of protection because of its unique biota and important water resources. Organizations with vested interests in the region formed a coalition, the Suwannee Basin Interagency Alliance (SBIA), whose goals are to promote coordination in the identification, management, and scientific knowledge of the natural resources in the basin and estuary. To date, an integrated assessment of the physical, biological, and water resources has not been completed. A holistic, multi-disciplinary approach is being pursued to address the research needs in the basin and estuary and to provide supportive data for meeting management objectives of the entire ecosystem. The USGS is well situated to focus on the larger concerns of the basin and estuary by addressing specific research questions linking water supply and quality to ecosystem function and health across county and state boundaries. A strategic plan is being prepared in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies to identify and implement studies to address the most compelling research issues and management questions, and to conduct fundamental environmental monitoring studies. The USGS, Suwannee River Water Management District and the Florida Marine Research Institute are co-sponsoring this scientific workshop on the Suwannee River Basin and Estuary to: Discuss current and past research findings, Identify information gaps and research priorities, and Develop an action plan for coordinated and relevant research activities in the future. This workshop builds on the highly successful basin-wide conference sponsored by the Suwannee Basin Interagency Alliance that was held three years ago in Live Oak, Florida. This years workshop will focus on identifying information needs and priorities and developing partnerships. The USGS is seeking to define the role of the USGS Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC) in conducting integrated research in the Suwannee River Basin, and to establish a cooperative program with other agencies. Participants interested in river, floodplain, springs, estuary, or basin-wide issues are encouraged to attend. Topics for this years workshop include: Water quality and geochemistry: nutrient enrichment, reduction of nutrient loading to ground water, contaminants, and land use, Hydrogeology: interactions among ground water, surface water and ecosystem, modeling, and baseline mapping, Ecosystem dynamics: structure, process, species, and habitats (estuarine, riverine, floodplain, and wetland), and Information management: data sharing, database development, geographic information system (GIS), and basin-wide models.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5: Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1734-6

The Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH) protocol is designed for assessing ecosystem function on rangelands and woodlands. The protocol was developed by an interagency cadre of technical experts and has been in use by for two decades. The protocol is well accepted and is a valuable tool for communicating rangeland conditions with stakeholders. Technical Reference 1734-6 Version 4, which describes the IIRH protocol, was published in 2005. Refinements and improvements identified through 12 years of experience with class participants and field office personnel applying the protocol as outlined in Version 4 are incorporated into Version 5 of the technical reference. Indicators and attributes used in previous versions of the technical reference are largely the same, and following instructions in Version 5 is not expected to result in differing attribute ratings as compared to assessments completed using Version 4 of TR 1734-6 assuming that the same reference information is used.

Report↗
USGS2015

Tools for discovering and accessing Great Lakes scientific data

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is a multidisciplinary and interagency effort focused on the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes (GL) using the best available science and applying lessons learned from previous studies. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) contributes to the GLRI effort by providing resource managers with information and tools needed to meet restoration goals. This includes contributing scientific expertise and delivering findings to the GL community through meaningful information products. One of the strengths of the GLRI is its interagency approach; however, this can create challenges when coordinating the large number of restoration activities being performed by GL governments, tribes, academics, nonprofits, and industry. There is a vast array of data being produced by both the USGS and its partners, and it is crucial that scientists, managers, policymakers, and the public can easily locate the biological, geological, geospatial, and water-resources data being generated. The USGS strives to develop data products that are easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to use through Web-accessible tools that allow users to learn about the breadth and scope of GLRI activities being undertaken by the USGS and its partners. By creating tools that enable data to be shared and reused more easily, the USGS can encourage collaboration and assist the GL community in finding, interpreting, and understanding the information created during GLRI science activities.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2009

Generalized Skew Coefficients of Annual Peak Flows for Rural, Unregulated Streams in West Virginia

Generalized skew was determined from analysis of records from 147 streamflow-gaging stations in or near West Virginia. The analysis followed guidelines established by the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data described in Bulletin 17B, except that stations having 50 or more years of record were used instead of stations with the less restrictive recommendation of 25 or more years of record. The generalized-skew analysis included contouring, averaging, and regression of station skews. The best method was considered the one with the smallest mean square error (MSE). MSE is defined as the following quantity summed and divided by the number of peaks: the square of the difference of an individual logarithm (base 10) of peak flow less the mean of all individual logarithms of peak flow. Contouring of station skews was the best method for determining generalized skew for West Virginia, with a MSE of about 0.2174. This MSE is an improvement over the MSE of about 0.3025 for the national map presented in Bulletin 17B.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Ecoregions of California

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across Federal agencies, State agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources in the same geographical areas (Omernik and others, 2000). The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions are hierarchical and can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, map revised 2006). At level III, the continental United States contains 105 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). Level IV, depicted here for California, is a further refinement of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define these ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Omernik and others (2000), and Omernik and Griffith (2014). California has great ecological and biological diversity. The State contains offshore islands and coastal lowlands, large alluvial valleys, forested mountain ranges, deserts, and various aquatic habitats. There are 13 level III ecoregions and 177 level IV ecoregions in California and most continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent States of the United States or Mexico (Bryce and others, 2003; Thorson and others, 2003; Griffith and others, 2014). The California ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). This poster is the result of a collaborative project primarily between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of the Interior–Geological Survey (USGS), and other State of California agencies and universities. The project is associated with interagency efforts to develop a common framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA–Forest Service (Bailey and others, 1994; Miles and Goudy, 1997; Cleland and others, 2007), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 1981; U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Regional collaborative projects such as this one in California, where some agreement has been reached among multiple resource-management agencies, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

California↗
USGS1996

Lake levels, streamflow, and surface-water quality in the Devils Lake area, North Dakota

The Devils Lake Basin is a 3,810-square-mile (mi 2 ) closed basin (fig. 1) in the Red River of the North Basin. About 3,320 mi 2 of the total 3,810 mi 2 is tributary to Devils Lake; the remainder is tributary to Stump Lake. Since glaciation, the lake level of Devils Lake has fluctuated from about 1,457 feet (ft) above sea level (asl), the natural spill elevation of the lake to the Sheyenne River, to 1,400 ft asl (Aronow, 1957). Although no documented records of lake levels are available before 1867, Upham (1895, p. 595), on the basis of tree-ring chronology, indicated that the lake level was 1,441 ft asl in 1830. Lake levels were recorded sporadically from 1867 to 1901 when the U.S. Geological Survey established a gaging station on Devils Lake. From 1867 to the present (1996), the lake level has fluctuated between a maximum of 1,438.4 ft asl in 1867 and a minimum of 1,400.9 ft asl in 1940 (fig. 2) . On July 31, 1996, the lake level was 1,437.8 ft asl, about 15.2 ft higher than the level recorded in February 1993 and the highest level in about 120 years. Since 1993, the lake level of Devils Lake (fig. 2) has risen rapidly in response to above-normal precipitation from the summer of 1993 to the present, and 30,000 acres of land around the lake have been flooded. The above-normal precipitation also has caused flooding elsewhere in the Devils Lake Basin. State highways near Devils Lake are being raised, and some local roads have been closed because of flooding. In response to the flooding, the Devils Lake Basin Interagency Task Force, comprised of many State and Federal agencies, was formed in 1995 to find and propose intermediate (5 years or less) solutions to reduce the effects of high lake levels. In addition to various planning studies being conducted by Federal agencies, the North Dakota State Water Commission has implemented a project to store water on small tracts of land and in the chain of lakes (Sweetwater Lake, Morrison Lake, Dry Lake, Mikes Lake, Chain Lake, Lake Alice, and Lake Irvine). Most of the planning studies include options to store water in the Devils Lake Basin and to provide an outlet to the Sheyenne River via Devils Lake or the Stump Lakes. If an outlet is constructed, water-quantity and -quality issues will be considered in designing the operating plan. Therefore, current and accurate hydrologic information is needed to assess the viability of the various options to lower the level of Devils Lake.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2015

Data categories for marine planning

The U.S. National Ocean Policy calls for a science- and ecosystem-based approach to comprehensive planning and management of human activities and their impacts on America’s oceans. The Ocean Community in Data.gov is an outcome of 2010–2011 work by an interagency working group charged with designing a national information management system to support ocean planning. Within the working group, a smaller team developed a list of the data categories specifically relevant to marine planning. This set of categories is an important consensus statement of the breadth of information types required for ocean planning from a national, multidisciplinary perspective. Although the categories were described in a working document in 2011, they have not yet been fully implemented explicitly in online services or geospatial metadata, in part because authoritative definitions were not created formally. This document describes the purpose of the data categories, provides definitions, and identifies relations among the categories and between the categories and external standards. It is intended to be used by ocean data providers, managers, and users in order to provide a transparent and consistent framework for organizing and describing complex information about marine ecosystems and their connections to humans.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Species accounts for the Alamosa/Monte Vista/Baca National Wildlife Refuge Complex

As part of an interagency agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Alamosa/Monte Vista/Baca National Wildlife Refuge Complex requested help with the synthesis of scientific information for 10 focal species and their habitat requirements in response to common Refuge management activities in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. This information will be instrumental in developing the Service's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), which is required by law for each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. After consultation with Refuge managers and USGS staff, the 10 species chosen for detailed literature reviews and synthesis of information were the following: (1) American Avocet ( Recurvirostra americana ); (2) Wilson's Phalarope ( Phalaropus tricolor Porzana carolina ); (4) White-faced Ibis ( Plegadis chihi ); (5) Black Tern ( Chlidonias niger ); (6) Short-eared Owl ( Asio flammeus ); (7) Brewer's Sparrow ( Spizella breweri ); (8) Savannah Sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis ); (9) Northern Leopard Frog [ Lithobates (=Rana) pipiens ]; and, (10) Tadpole Shrimp ( Triops longicaudatus ).

Colorado↗
USGS1999

Estimation of magnitude and frequency of floods for streams in Puerto Rico: New empirical models

Flood-peak discharges and frequencies are presented for 57 gaged sites in Puerto Rico for recurrence intervals ranging from 2 to 500 years. The log-Pearson Type III distribution, the methodology recommended by the United States Interagency Committee on Water Data, was used to determine the magnitude and frequency of floods at the gaged sites having 10 to 43 years of record. A technique is presented for estimating flood-peak discharges at recurrence intervals ranging from 2 to 500 years for unregulated streams in Puerto Rico with contributing drainage areas ranging from 0.83 to 208 square miles. Loglinear multiple regression analyses, using climatic and basin characteristics and peak-discharge data from the 57 gaged sites, were used to construct regression equations to transfer the magnitude and frequency information from gaged to ungaged sites. The equations have contributing drainage area, depth-to-rock, and mean annual rainfall as the basin and climatic characteristics in estimating flood peak discharges. Examples are given to show a step-by-step procedure in calculating a 100-year flood at a gaged site, an ungaged site, a site near a gaged location, and a site between two gaged sites.

Puerto Rico↗
USGS1974

Water in the Great Basin region; Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming

The Great Basin Region is defined to include the drainage of the Great Basin physiographic section (Fennman, 1931) in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. In October 1966, the President’s Water Resources Council requested that a comprehensive framework study be made in the Great Basin Region under the leadership of the Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee. The study, which included evaluation of the water resources of the region and guidelines for future study and development, was completed June 30, 1971. Results of the study received limited distribution. The purpose of this atlas is to make available to the public the hydrologic data (including a general appraisal) that were compiled for the comprehensive framework study. Most of the work was done by a water-resources work group consisting of members from several Federal and State agencies under the chairmanship of Thomas E. Eakin of the U.S. Geological Survey. This atlas contains some data not included in the framework study. The data presented herein are reconnaissance in nature and should be used with discretion. The maps are highly generalized and are intended only to illustrate the regional distribution of the supply and general chemical quality of the water. Sources of more detailed information on the hydrology of specific parts of the Great Basin region are listed in the selected references.

Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2009

Planning for an uncertain future - Monitoring, integration, and adaptation

The 6.7 billion human inhabitants of the earth have the ability to drastically alter ecosystems and the populations of species that have taken eons to evolve. By better understanding how our actions affect the environment, we stand a better chance of designing successful strategies to manage ecosystems sustainably. Toward this end, the Third Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds (ICRW) was convened in Estes Park, CO, on September 8-11, 2008. The Conference provided a forum to present adaptive management as a practical tool for learning how to manage complex ecosystems more sustainably. Further complexity introduced by spatially variable and continuously changing environmental drivers favors this management approach because of its emphasis on adaptation in response to changing conditions or ineffective actions. For climate change in particular, an adaptive approach can more effectively accommodate the uncertainty in future climate scenarios. Scenarios compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are built on distinct economic, energy, and societal models. The scenarios predict potential changes in greenhouse gases, temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric aerosols, which would have direct or indirect impacts on the timing, volume, and quality of runoff, vegetation, snowpack, stream temperature, groundwater, thawing permafrost, and icecaps. Through presentations and field trips, researchers and stakeholders described how their findings and issues fit into the adaptive management 'learning by doing' paradigm of Assess > Design > Implement > Monitor > Evaluate > Adjust > Assess.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2022

Update and recalibration of the Rio Grande Transboundary Integrated Hydrologic Model, New Mexico and Texas, United States, and northern Chihuahua, Mexico

The Rio Grande Transboundary Integrated Hydrologic Model (RGTIHM) was developed through an interagency effort between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation to provide a tool for analyzing the hydrologic system response to the historical evolution of water use and potential changes in water supplies and demands in the Hatch Valley (also known as Rincon Valley in the study area) and Mesilla Basin, New Mexico and Texas, United States, and northern Chihuahua, Mexico. Reclamation operates the Rio Grande Project (RGP) to store and deliver surface water for irrigation and municipal use within the study area and in the El Paso Valley south of the El Paso Narrows. Biases in the RGTIHM’s simulation of streamflow and aquifer storage depletion and the availability of new estimates of historical agricultural consumptive use in the study area initiated an update and recalibration of the RGTIHM. In addition to the new estimates of historical agricultural consumptive use, updates were made to more accurately represent the natural system and included adjustments to the initial groundwater levels; streamflow rating tables; Rio Grande, canal, and drain streambed elevations; tributary streambed elevations; surface-water inflows and diversions; RGP surface-water deliveries and canal waste; on-farm efficiency; the routing of surface-water runoff within the MODFLOW Farm Process; and general head boundaries used to simulate interbasin groundwater flow. Model settings, including the assignment of hydraulic conductivity and storage properties to model layers and the MODFLOW solver package, were adjusted to improve numerical stability, and the model was recalibrated to better simulate the natural system. The updated and recalibrated RGTIHM demonstrates a robust ability to simulate the spatially and temporally variable measurements, estimates, or reports of hydraulic head, surface-water flows, agricultural pumping, RGP surface-water deliveries and canal waste, and decadal aquifer storage changes, with improvements over the previous version of the model.

Chihuahua, New Mexico, Texas↗
USGS2021

Alaska natural gas hydrate production testing: Test site selection, characterization and testing operations

This Interagency Agreement supports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its research partners in understanding, predicting, and testing the recoverability and potential production characteristics of onshore natural gas hydrate in the Greater Prudhoe Bay area on the Alaska North Slope (ANS: Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, and Milne Point areas) or other areas deemed suitable by DOE and USGS for potential long-term production testing of gas hydrate. Researchers will accomplish these tasks by evaluating the occurrence and resource potential of the known gas hydrate accumulations in the Eileen trend. Geologic, geochemical, and geophysical (2-D and 3-D seismic surveys) data from northern Alaska and other data sources, including wireline and mud log surveys of wells of opportunity, will be used to assess the occurrence and nature of the known gas hydrate accumulations. The project involves two primary areas of effort: the geologic and engineering assessment of the Eileen gas-hydrate accumulation and support of DOE and its industry partners in evaluating, planning, and preparing for drilling and testing gas hydrate research wells in northern Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

Great Lakes restoration success through science: U.S. Geological Survey accomplishments 2010 through 2013

The Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario) are the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth and serve as an important source of drinking water, transportation, power, and recreational opportunities for the United States and Canada. They also support an abundant commercial and recreational fishery, are crucial for agriculture, and are essential to the economic vitality of the region. The Great Lakes support a wealth of biological diversity, including over 200 globally rare plants and animals and more than 40 species that are found nowhere else in the world. However, more than a century of environmental degradation has taken a substantial toll on the Great Lakes. To stimulate and promote the goal of a healthy Great Lakes region, President Obama and Congress created the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in 2009. The GLRI is an interagency collaboration that seeks to address the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The GLRI is composed of five focus areas that address these issues: Cleaning up toxic substances and Areas of Concern, Preventing and controlling invasive species, Promoting nearshore health, Protecting and restoring habitat and wildlife, Tracking progress and working with partners. As of August 2013, the GLRI had funded more than 1,500 projects and programs of the highest priority to meet immediate cleanup, restoration, and protection needs. These projects use scientific analyses as the basis for identifying the restoration needs and priorities for the GLRI. Results from the science, monitoring, and other on-the-ground actions by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provide the scientific information needed to help guide the Great Lakes restoration efforts. This document highlights a selection of USGS projects for each of the five focus areas through 2013, demonstrating the importance of science for restoration success. Additional information for these and other USGS projects that are important for Great Lakes restoration is available at http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/glri-catalog/ .

Great Lakes↗