Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis”

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.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Building a state-space life cycle model for naturally produced Snake River fall Chinook salmon

In 1992, Snake River basin fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were listed for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (NMFS 1992) and the population remained below 1000 individuals until 2000. Since then, returns from natural production has rebounded to over 20,000 spawners owing to a host of factors including reduced harvest (Peters et al. 2001), stable minimum spawning flows (Groves and Chandler 1999), summer flow augmentation (Connor et al. 2003), predator control (Beamesderfer et al. 1996), hatchery supplementation (Rosenberger et al. 2017), improved juvenile passage structures (Adams et al. 2014), summer spill operations (Perry et al. 2006; Adams et al. 2008), and periods of favorable ocean conditions and food availability (Logerwell et al. 2003; Peterson et al. 2014). Given this change in abundance coincident with numerous management actions and fluctuation in environmental drivers, quantifying which factors contributed to the observed rebound in natural production can provide critical insights into future management actions for this at-risk population. Multistage life cycle models provide a powerful analytical framework for understating how each life stage of a population contributes to population growth rate (Moussalli and Hilborn 1986; Greene and Beechie 2004). Multistage models may also be used as an analytical framework to explicitly estimate demographic parameters of a population model. This approach has an advantage over single-stage stock-recruitment models by allowing population growth rates to be partitioned among life stages rather than aggregated over an entire life cycle. Such partitioning allows for estimating 1) stage-specific density dependence, and 2) stage-specific effects of environmental factors or management actions. For example, Zabel et al. (2006) estimated parameters of a multistage model used in the context of a population viability analysis for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River, but such an approach has yet to be applied to fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin. Typically, data informing estimates of abundance at particular “check points” in the life cycle determines the complexity of the multistage model that can be fit to the data. For fall Chinook salmon, we are developing a two-stage model that encompasses: 1) upstream passage of spawners at Lower Granite Dam (LGR) to the subsequent downstream passage of their progeny at the dam, and 2) downstream passage of juveniles at LGR to their subsequent return from the ocean and passage at the Dam 2‒6 years later. This approach partitions the life cycle of fall Chinook salmon both spatially and temporally, which allows us to fit and compare alternative models with covariates specific to each stage. Our previous report to the ISAB (Zabel et al. 2013) detailed methods for estimating abundance of naturally produced adults and juveniles passing Lower Granite Dam, which provides the requisite data for fitting a two-stage model. The intent of this report is to describe the structure of the two-stage life cycle model, present preliminary results from fitting the model to data, and outline future directions and developments. As is clear from the diversity of models presented in this report, “life cycle models” range from very simple theoretically based population models (e.g., the Beverton-Holt stock- recruitment model) to very complex spatially explicit simulation models linked to hydrosystem hydrodynamic models (e.g., the COMPASS model for a single transition in a life cycle model, Zabel et al. 2008). We chose to develop a model of intermediate complexity that casts the two- stage life cycle model in a state-space framework (Newman et al. 2014). We chose to use a state-space framework implemented in a Bayesian framework because: • It provides both a statistical estimation framework for retrospective statistical analysis and a stochastic simulation framework for prospective analysis to evaluate alternative management actions. • Abundance estimates are uncertain. A state-space framework accounts for observation uncertainty in the abundance estimates and other data (e.g., age structure) while simultaneously estimating process uncertainty. • It allows for missing data. By drawing missing data from an appropriate probability model, uncertainty owing to missing data can be propagated without having to omit data or assume fixed values for missing data. Thus, a two-stage state-space life cycle model for fall Chinook salmon strikes an appropriate balance between model complexity, tractability, and applicability given the goals of performing both retrospective and prospective analysis to guide future management of this population.

Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming↗

A practical primer on geostatistics

Introduction The Challenge —Most geological phenomena are extraordinarily complex in their interrelationships and vast in their geographical extension. Ordinarily, engineers and geoscientists are faced with corporate or scientific requirements to properly prepare geological models with measurements involving a small fraction of the entire area or volume of interest. Exact description of a system such as an oil reservoir is neither feasible nor economically possible. The results are necessarily uncertain. Note that the uncertainty is not an intrinsic property of the systems; it is the result of incomplete knowledge by the observer. The Aim of Geostatistics —The main objective of geostatistics is the characterization of spatial systems that are incompletely known, systems that are common in geology. A key difference from classical statistics is that geostatistics uses the sampling location of every measurement. Unless the measurements show spatial correlation, the application of geostatistics is pointless. Ordinarily the need for additional knowledge goes beyond a few points, which explains the display of results graphically as fishnet plots, block diagrams, and maps. Geostatistical Methods —Geostatistics is a collection of numerical techniques for the characterization of spatial attributes using primarily two tools: probabilistic models, which are used for spatial data in a manner similar to the way in which time-series analysis characterizes temporal data, or pattern recognition techniques. The probabilistic models are used as a way to handle uncertainty in results away from sampling locations, making a radical departure from alternative approaches like inverse distance estimation methods. Differences with Time Series —On dealing with time-series analysis, users frequently concentrate their attention on extrapolations for making forecasts. Although users of geostatistics may be interested in extrapolation, the methods work at their best interpolating. This simple difference has significant methodological implications. Historical Remarks —As a discipline, geostatistics was firmly established in the 1960s by the French engineer Georges Matheron, who was interested in the appraisal of ore reserves in mining. Geostatistics did not develop overnight. Like other disciplines, it has built on previous results, many of which were formulated with different objectives in various fields. Pioneers —Seminal ideas conceptually related to what today we call geostatistics or spatial statistics are found in the work of several pioneers, including: 1940s: A.N. Kolmogorov in turbulent flow and N. Wiener in stochastic processing; 1950s: D. Krige in mining; 1960s: B. Mathern in forestry and L.S. Gandin in meteorology Calculations —Serious applications of geostatistics require the use of digital computers. Although for most geostatistical techniques rudimentary implementation from scratch is fairly straightforward, coding programs from scratch is recommended only as part of a practice that may help users to gain a better grasp of the formulations. Software —For professional work, the reader should employ software packages that have been thoroughly tested to handle any sampling scheme, that run as efficiently as possible, and that offer graphic capabilities for the analysis and display of results. This primer employs primarily the package Stanford Geomodeling Software (SGeMS) - recently developed at the Energy Resources Engineering Department at Stanford University - as a way to show how to obtain results practically. This applied side of the primer should not be interpreted as the notes being a manual for the use of SGeMS. The main objective of the primer is to help the reader gain an understanding of the fundamental concepts and tools in geostatistics. Organization of the Primer —The chapters of greatest importance are those covering kriging and simulation. All other materials are peripheral and are included for better comprehension of these main geostatistical modeling tools. The choice of kriging versus simulation is often a big puzzle to the uninitiated, let alone the different variants of both of them. Chapters 14, 18, and 19 are intended to shed light on those subjects. The critical aspect of assessing and modeling spatial correlation is covered in chapter 7. Chapters 2 and 3 review relevant concepts in classical statistics. Course Objectives —This course offers stochastic solutions to common problems in the characterization of complex geological systems. At the end of the course, participants should have: an understanding of the theoretical foundations of geostatistics; a good grasp of its possibilities and limitations; and reasonable familiarity with the SGeMS software, thus opening the possibility of practically applying geostatistics.

Open-File Report↗

Statistics for stochastic modeling of volume reduction, hydrograph extension, and water-quality treatment by structural stormwater runoff best management practices (BMPs)

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed the Stochastic Empirical Loading and Dilution Model (SELDM) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to indicate the risk for stormwater concentrations, flows, and loads to be above user-selected water-quality goals and the potential effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce such risks. SELDM models the potential effect of mitigation measures by using Monte Carlo methods with statistics that approximate the net effects of structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs). In this report, structural BMPs are defined as the components of the drainage pathway between the source of runoff and a stormwater discharge location that affect the volume, timing, or quality of runoff. SELDM uses a simple stochastic statistical model of BMP performance to develop planning-level estimates of runoff-event characteristics. This statistical approach can be used to represent a single BMP or an assemblage of BMPs. The SELDM BMP-treatment module has provisions for stochastic modeling of three stormwater treatments: volume reduction, hydrograph extension, and water-quality treatment. In SELDM, these three treatment variables are modeled by using the trapezoidal distribution and the rank correlation with the associated highway-runoff variables. This report describes methods for calculating the trapezoidal-distribution statistics and rank correlation coefficients for stochastic modeling of volume reduction, hydrograph extension, and water-quality treatment by structural stormwater BMPs and provides the calculated values for these variables. This report also provides robust methods for estimating the minimum irreducible concentration (MIC), which is the lowest expected effluent concentration from a particular BMP site or a class of BMPs. These statistics are different from the statistics commonly used to characterize or compare BMPs. They are designed to provide a stochastic transfer function to approximate the quantity, duration, and quality of BMP effluent given the associated inflow values for a population of storm events. A database application and several spreadsheet tools are included in the digital media accompanying this report for further documentation of methods and for future use. In this study, analyses were done with data extracted from a modified copy of the January 2012 version of International Stormwater Best Management Practices Database, designated herein as the January 2012a version. Statistics for volume reduction, hydrograph extension, and water-quality treatment were developed with selected data. Sufficient data were available to estimate statistics for 5 to 10 BMP categories by using data from 40 to more than 165 monitoring sites. Water-quality treatment statistics were developed for 13 runoff-quality constituents commonly measured in highway and urban runoff studies including turbidity, sediment and solids; nutrients; total metals; organic carbon; and fecal coliforms. The medians of the best-fit statistics for each category were selected to construct generalized cumulative distribution functions for the three treatment variables. For volume reduction and hydrograph extension, interpretation of available data indicates that selection of a Spearman’s rho value that is the average of the median and maximum values for the BMP category may help generate realistic simulation results in SELDM. The median rho value may be selected to help generate realistic simulation results for water-quality treatment variables. MIC statistics were developed for 12 runoff-quality constituents commonly measured in highway and urban runoff studies by using data from 11 BMP categories and more than 167 monitoring sites. Four statistical techniques were applied for estimating MIC values with monitoring data from each site. These techniques produce a range of lower-bound estimates for each site. Four MIC estimators are proposed as alternatives for selecting a value from among the estimates from multiple sites. Correlation analysis indicates that the MIC estimates from multiple sites were weakly correlated with the geometric mean of inflow values, which indicates that there may be a qualitative or semiquantitative link between the inflow quality and the MIC. Correlations probably are weak because the MIC is influenced by the inflow water quality and the capability of each individual BMP site to reduce inflow concentrations.

Scientific Investigations Report↗