Search USGSSearch

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Technical Note”

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 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Bird use of reforestation sites: Influence of location and vertical structure

In the Lower Mississippi Valley, more than 300,000 acres of agricultural land have been reforested in the last 10 years. Planning decisions on how and where to restore forest are complex and usually reflect landowner objectives. However, initial planning decisions may have a large influence on the value of restored stands for birds and other wildlife. Reforestation of small, isolated tracts will likely result in mature forests where reproductive output of breeding birds does not compensate for adult mortality (sink habitats). This may be due to factors such as lower reproductive success near edges (edge effects), insufficient area of habitat to attract colonizing birds (area effects), or restricted population mixing and mating opportunities because of limited dispersal among tracts (isolation effects). Conversely, reforestation adjacent to existing forest increases contiguous forest area and provides areas buffered from agricultural or urban habitats (interior forest core). Bottomland reforestation has historically focused on planting relatively slow-growing tree species, particularly oaks (Quercus spp.). Thus, restoration sites are often dominated by grasses and forbs for up to a decade after tree planting. Grassland birds are the first birds to colonize reforested sites. However, abundance and productivity of grassland birds is generally poor on sites associated with woody vegetation, such as sites adjacent to mature forest. As woody vegetation develops on reforested sites, birds preferring shrub-scrub habitat displace grassland species (Twedt et al. 2002) (fig. 1). Planting faster-growing trees compresses the time for colonization by shrub-scrub birds and the increased vertical stature of these trees attracts forest birds (Twedt and Portwood 1996). Additionally, planting next to existing mature forests creates transitional edges that reduce the detrimental effects of abrupt forest-agriculture interfaces.

Technical Note

Progress in data collection and dissemination in water resources – 1974-2014

In the 50 years since the founding of the American Water Resources Association (AWRA), there has been tremendous and likely unforeseen progress in water-re- sources data collection and dissemination. Langford and Doyel (1974) (henceforth L&D) described progress during the decade following the founding of AWRA, and focused their description around seven topics. L&D described the changes as being “more philosophical than technical,” and noted the importance to the water-resources com- munity of the more than 30 Federal Acts or Amendments enacted in the decade. The purpose of this article is to provide an update to L&D by reviewing L&D’s predictions of anticipated changes in water resources data collection and dissemi-nation, providing an overview of some of the drivers of change in the water-resources community in the last 40 years, identifying some key advances in water-resources data collection and dissemination since 1974, and out-lining some important near-term challenges. The overview is necessarily incomplete, but represents one perspective based on years of collaboration throughout the water-resources community.

Water Resources Impact

oSCR: A spatial capture–recapture R package for inference about spatial ecological processes

Spatial capture–recapture (SCR) methods have become widely applied in ecology. The immediate adoption of SCR is due to the fact that it resolves some major criticisms of traditional capture–recapture methods related to heterogeneity in detectabililty, and the emergence of new technologies (e.g. camera traps, non‐invasive genetics) that have vastly improved our ability to collection spatially explicit observation data on individuals. However, the utility of SCR methods reaches far beyond simply convenience and data availability. SCR presents a formal statistical framework that can be used to test explicit hypotheses about core elements of population and landscape ecology, and has profound implications for how we study animal populations. In this software note, we describe the technical basis and analytical workflow of oSCR, an R package for analyzing spatial encounter history data using a multi‐session sex‐structured likelihood. The impetus for developing oSCR was to create an accessible and transparent analysis tool that allows users to conveniently and intuitively formulate statistical models that map directly to fundamental processes of interest in spatial population ecology (e.g. space use, resource selection, density and connectivity). We have placed an emphasis on creating a transparent and accessible code base that is coupled with a logical workflow that we hope stimulates active participation in further technical developments.

Ecography

QRev—Software for computation and quality assurance of acoustic doppler current profiler moving-boat streamflow measurements—Technical manual for version 2.8

The software program, QRev applies common and consistent computational algorithms combined with automated filtering and quality assessment of the data to improve the quality and efficiency of streamflow measurements and helps ensure that U.S. Geological Survey streamflow measurements are consistent, accurate, and independent of the manufacturer of the instrument used to make the measurement. Software from different manufacturers uses different algorithms for various aspects of the data processing and discharge computation. The algorithms used by QRev to filter data, interpolate data, and compute discharge are documented and compared to the algorithms used in the manufacturers’ software. QRev applies consistent algorithms and creates a data structure that is independent of the data source. QRev saves an extensible markup language (XML) file that can be imported into databases or electronic field notes software. This report is the technical manual for version 2.8 of QRev.

Open-File Report

Challenges in observational seismology

Earthquake seismology became a quantitative scientific discipline after instruments were developed to record seismic waves in the late 19th century ( Dewey and Byerly, 1969 ; Chapter 1 by Agnew). Earthquake seismology is essentially based on field observations. The great progress made in the past several decades was primarily due to increasingly plentiful and high-quality data that are readily distributed. Our ability to collect, process, and analyze earthquake data has been accelerated by advances in electronics, communications, computers, and software (see Chapter 85 edited by Snoke and Garcia-Fernandez). Instrumental observation of earthquakes has been carried out for a little over 100 years by seismic stations and networks of various sizes, from local to global scales (see Chapter 87 edited by Lahr and van Eck). The observed data have been used, for example, (1) to compute the source parameters of earthquakes, (2) to determine the physical properties of the Earth's interior, (3) to test the theory of plate tectonics , (4) to map active faults, (5) to infer the nature of damaging ground shaking, and (6) to carry out seismic hazard analysis. Construction of a satisfactory theory of the earthquake process has not yet been achieved within the context of physical laws. Good progress, however, has been made in building a physical foundation of the earthquake source process, partly as a result of research directed toward earthquake prediction. This chapter is intended for a general audience. Technical details are not given, but relevant references and chapters in this Handbook are referred to. The first part of this chapter presents a brief overview of the observational aspects of earthquake seismology, concentrating on instrumental observations of seismic waves generated by earthquakes (i.e., seismic monitoring), and readers are referred to Chapter 49 by Musson and Cecic for noninstrumental observations. A few key developments and practices are summarized by taking a general view, since many national and regional developments have been chronicled in national and institutional reports (see Chapter 79 edited by Kisslinger). In the latter part of this chapter, the nature of seismic monitoring and some challenges in observational seismology are discussed from a personal perspective. Comments of a technical or philosophical nature are given in the Notes at the end of the chapter, and they are referenced by superscript numbers in the text.

International Geophysics

Digital Mapping Techniques '05--Workshop Proceedings, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 24-27, 2005

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '05 (DMT'05) workshop was attended by more than 100 technical experts from 47 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous eight meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), and in Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004). This year's meeting was hosted by the Louisiana Geological Survey, from April 24-27, 2005, on the Louisiana State University campus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database?and for the State and Federal geological surveys?to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2005 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report

Digital mapping techniques '06 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '06 (DMT'06) workshop was attended by more than 110 technical experts from 51 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 27 state geological surveys (see Appendix A of these Proceedings). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous nine meetings, which were held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004), and Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Soller, 2005). This year's meeting was hosted by the Ohio Geological Survey, from June 11-14, 2006, on the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure that I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, the latter of which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database - and for the State and Federal geological surveys - to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2006 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; and 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report

Digital Mapping Techniques '10-Workshop Proceedings, Sacramento, California, May 16-19, 2010

The Digital Mapping Techniques '10 (DMT'10) workshop was attended by 110 technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 19 State geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop, hosted by the California Geological Survey, May 16-19, 2010, in Sacramento, California, was similar in nature to the previous 13 meetings (see Appendix B). The meeting was coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Geologic Map Database project. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure that I note that the objective was again successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. At this meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products ("publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LiDAR; (3) digital cartographic techniques; (4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; (5) analytical GIS techniques; and (6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report

Network global navigation satellite system surveys to harmonize American and Canadian datum for the Lake Champlain Basin

Historically high flood levels were observed during flooding in Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River from late April through May 2011. Flooding was caused by record spring precipitation and snowmelt from the third highest cumulative snowfall year on record, which included a warm, saturated late spring snowpack. Flood stage was exceeded for a total of 67 days from April 13 to June 19, 2011. During this flooding, shoreline erosion and lake flood inundation were exacerbated by wind-driven waves associated with local fetch and lake-wide seiche effects. In May 2011, a new water-surface-elevation record was set for Lake Champlain. Peak lake-level water-surface elevations varied at the three U.S. Geological Survey lake-level gages on Lake Champlain in 2011. The May 2011 peak water-surface elevations for Lake Champlain ranged from 103.20 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 at the northern end of Lake Champlain (at its outlet into the Richelieu River at Rouses Point, New York) to 103.57 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 at the southern end of the Lake in Whitehall, New York. The water-surface elevations for the Richelieu River in Canada are referenced to a different vertical datum than are those in Lake Champlain in the United States, which causes difficulty in assessing real-time flood water-surface elevations and comparing of flood peaks in the Lake Champlain Basin in the United States and Canada. On March 19, 2012, as a result of the flood event of April and May 2011, the Governments of Canada and the United States asked the International Joint Commission to draft a plan of study to examine the causes and the effects of the spring 2011 flooding on Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River and develop potential mitigation measures. Specific challenges noted by the International Lake Champlain-Richelieu River Technical Working Group (established by the International Joint Commission) included harmonization of vertical datums within the drainage basin. Harmonization of the vertical datum discrepancy is needed for flood assessment and future efforts to model the flow of water through the Lake Champlain Basin in the United States and Canada. In April 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada began a joint field effort with the goal of obtaining precise elevations representing a common vertical datum for select reference marks used to determine water-surface elevations throughout Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River. To harmonize the datum difference between the United States and Canada, Global Navigation Satellite System surveys were completed at nine locations in the Lake Champlain Basin to collect simultaneous satellite data. These satellite data were processed to produce elevations for two reference marks associated with dams and seven reference marks associated with active water-level gages (lake gages in Lake Champlain and streamgages in the Richelieu River) to harmonize vertical datums throughout the Lake Champlain Basin. The Global Navigation Satellite System surveys were completed from April 14 to 16, 2015, at locations ranging from southern Lake Champlain near Whitehall, New York, to the northern end of the Richelieu River in Sorel, Quebec, at its confluence with the St. Lawrence River in Canada. Lake-gage water-surface elevations determined during the 3 days of surveys were converted to water-surface elevations referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 by using calculated offsets and historical water-surface elevations. In this report, an “offset” refers to the adjustment that needs to be applied to published data from a particular gage to produce elevation data referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Offsets presented in this report can be used in the evaluation of water-surface elevations in a common datum for Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River. In addition, the water-level data referenced to the common datum (as determined from the offsets) may be used to calibrate flow models and support future modeling studies developed for Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River.

New York, Quebec, Vermont

Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference

Statistical thinking in wildlife biology and ecology has been profoundly influenced by the introduction of AIC (Akaike?s information criterion) as a tool for model selection and as a basis for model averaging. In this paper, we advocate the Bayesian paradigm as a broader framework for multimodel inference, one in which model averaging and model selection are naturally linked, and in which the performance of AIC-based tools is naturally evaluated. Prior model weights implicitly associated with the use of AIC are seen to highly favor complex models: in some cases, all but the most highly parameterized models in the model set are virtually ignored a priori. We suggest the usefulness of the weighted BIC (Bayesian information criterion) as a computationally simple alternative to AIC, based on explicit selection of prior model probabilities rather than acceptance of default priors associated with AIC. We note, however, that both procedures are only approximate to the use of exact Bayes factors. We discuss and illustrate technical difficulties associated with Bayes factors, and suggest approaches to avoiding these difficulties in the context of model selection for a logistic regression. Our example highlights the predisposition of AIC weighting to favor complex models and suggests a need for caution in using the BIC for computing approximate posterior model weights.

Ecology

Results of a workshop concerning assessment of the functions of bottomland hardwoods

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) to participate in the regulation of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This regulatory authority is exercised in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has responsibility for permit issuance, and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Through amendments to the original statute, a series of legal actions and court decisions, and the development of operating guidance among the responsible agencies, Section 404 has evolved into the primary mechanism afforded Federal authorities for the protection of wetlands. EPA recognizes the importance of wetlands in achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, which are to protect and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. EPA Administrator Lee Thomas has identified wetlands protection as among the highest of Agency priorities. EPA recognizes that bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands have vital and unique attributes that, if lost, would severely impact the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. As part of a broad program to better protect the Nation's wetlands, EPA has therefore identified bottomland hardwood wetlands as a priority resource requiring special attention on a national basis. Recognizing the importance of implementing an effective, nationally consistent, and scientifically defensible regulatory program, EPA, in October 1984, issued Interim Operating Guidance to its field personnel for implementing the Section 404 regulatory program in bottomland hardwood wetlands. With the goal of improving and finalizing that guidance, EPA is sponsoring a series of workshops designed to answer key questions concerning BLH wetlands, based on the best scientific and technical information currently available. The first two workshops were directed toward summarizing existing scientific and technical knowledge concerning the functions of BLH ecosystems, the characteristics that are important to each function, and the impact of various development activities on those characteristics. The first workshop, which was held in St. Francisville, Louisiana, in December, 1984, examined a wetland zonation concept as a framework for gaining a greater understanding of BLH structure and function. The workshop set out to determine whether characterization of BLH resources as a series of relatively distinct zones, defined by concomitant variation in hydrologic regime, soils, and vegetation, might provide the basis for a useful and scientifically sound regulatory framework. For examp1e, if certain zones are of particular importance to one or more wetland functions that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect, then the zonation concept might be useful from the perspective of how various activities should be regulated. Discussions during the first workshop, however, indicated that the zonation concept provides, at best, only an incomplete picture of the structure and function of BLH ecosystems. In many cases, BLH functions are not limited to or closely correlated with particular zones and, furthermore, many factors other than zone are important determinants of BLH functions. With these responses in mind, the second workshop, held at Lake Lanier, Georgia, in July, 1985, was designed to elicit information on two questions. First, if zones are not an adequate framework for understanding the functions of BLH systems, what characteristics (predictors) can be used to assess the extent to which a particular site performs these functions? And second, what are the impacts of various development activities that often occur in BLH ecosystems on those characteristics and thus on the functions themselves? At the second workshop, individual workgroups dealing with particular subject areas (e.g., hydrology, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ecosystem processes, and cultural/recreational/economic resources) were able to identify site characteristics that are important determinants of the performance of various functions. For example, the Hydrology Workgroup identified flood storage as one of three major hydrologic functions that BLH ecosystems perform. The workgroup then identified the most important characteristic (e.g., surface area of the site, soil saturation, and others) that determine flood storage and the likely impact of several common activities (e.g., conversion to soybean production and levee construction) on these characteristics. Some of the workgroups also provided estimates of the aggregate impact of activities, acting through all of the characteristics, on certain functions. The workgroups also identified key characteristics that could be used to identify high-value wetlands for various functions. In addition, the workgroups pointed out a number of topics needing further examination and discussion. First, all of the workgroups identified the need to develop the technical basis and information sources to address the problem of cumulative impacts in the regulatory process. Second, most of the workgroups noted the important of contextual variables in assessing the function of a particular site. For example, the location of a BLH site in relationship to other tracts of habitat is an important variable for many wildlife species. Similarly, the extent to which a site retains or transforms contaminants is depended not only on the characteristics of the site, but also on its position in a watershed relative to contaminant inputs. And finally, several of the workgroups pointed out that assessing the impact of an activity on a function is not as simple as "adding up" the impact on individual characteristics, but may depend instead on complex interactions among characteristics. Addressing these questions, as summarized in the objectives and discussions that follow, was the focus of the third workshop, the results of which are described in this report.

Report

National Cartographic Information Center Newsletter No. 6

As a rule we don't carry personnel information additions, subtractions, etc., in the newsletter. This is a technical publication, not a forum for office baseball league scores. Now, having got that disclaimer out of the way, we wanted to note that Dick Swinnerton, Chief of NCIC since the Center's inception in 1974, has left us. Dick was recently chosen as Chief of the Topographic Divisions's Western Mapping Center (a move up and, geographically at least, to the left). When Dick arrived NCIC consisted of 4 briefing books and an interesting concept. 3 years later we have 10 books and a thriving organization. We shall miss him. This issue contains what we hope is an interesting collection of cartographic news, including articles about recent Federal mapping agreements, new publication announcements, notes on the second NCIC coordinating conference, and a cumulative index for the spring 1975 to summer 1977 issues.

Newsletter

Review of USGS Open-file Report 95-525 ("Cartographic and digital standard for geologic map information") and plans for development of Federal draft standards for geologic map information

This report summarizes a technical review of USGS Open-File Report 95-525, 'Cartographic and Digital Standard for Geologic Map Information' and OFR 95-526 (diskettes containing digital representations of the standard symbols). If you are considering the purchase or use of those documents, you should read this report first. For some purposes, OFR 95-525 (the printed document) will prove to be an excellent resource. However, technical review identified significant problems with the two documents that will be addressed by various Federal and State committees composed of geologists and cartographers, as noted below. Therefore, the 2-year review period noted in OFR 95-525 is no longer applicable. Until those problems are resolved and formal standards are issued, you may consult the following World-Wide Web (WWW) site which contains information about development of geologic map standards: URL: http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/home.html

Open-File Report

USGS exploration geochemistry studies at the Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, Alaska— Pdf of presentation

From 2007 through 2010, scientists in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have been conducting exploration-oriented geochemical and geophysical studies in the region surrounding the giant Pebble porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit in southwestern Alaska. The Cretaceous Pebble deposit is concealed under tundra, glacial till, and Tertiary cover rocks, and is undisturbed except for numerous exploration drill holes. These USGS studies are part of a nation-wide research project on evaluating and detecting concealed mineral resources. This report focuses on exploration geochemistry and comprises illustrations and associated notes that were presented as a case study in a workshop on this topic. The workshop, organized by L.G. Closs and R. Glanzman, is called 'Geochemistry in Mineral Exploration and Development,' presented by the Society of Economic Geologists at a technical conference entitled 'The Challenge of Finding New Mineral Resources: Global Metallogeny, Integrative Exploration and New Discoveries,' held at Keystone, Colorado, October 2-5, 2010.

Alaska

The search for Braddock’s Caldera— Guidebook for Colorado Scientific Society Fall 2008 field trip, Never Summer Mountains, Colorado

The report contains the illustrated guidebook that was used for the fall field trip of the Colorado Scientific Society on September 6-7, 2008. It summarizes new information about the Tertiary geologic history of the northern Front Range and the Never Summer Mountains, particularly the late Oligocene volcanic and intrusive rocks designated the Braddock Peak complex. Minor modifications were made in response to technical reviews by D.J. Lidke and C.A. Ruleman (U.S. Geological Survey) regarding clarity and consistency, and text editing by M.A. Kidd. However, the text remains essentially similar to the guidebook that was circulated to the participants on the Colorado Scientific Society 2008 field trip. Several notes were added following the trip (as indicated) to address developments since the guidebook was written.

Colorado

Topical index and bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports

Part 1, the topical index, lists the titles of reports prepared from 1941 to December 1952, in conjunction with the Geological Survey's program of uranium and other elements of related interest. It includes not only completed Trace Elements reports and those now in preparation, but also Survey publications, publications by Survey personnel in scientific journals, and open-fie releases. The titles are grouped topically under the headings listed in the table of contents. Entries in each category are listed alphabetically, by author, and numbered consecutively. Many of the reports have been cross-indexed, where appropriate. The classification of the Trace Elements reports, insofar as it is known, has been indicated after the title of the report. The classification of some of the earlier Trace Elements reports is uncertain. The Geological Survey does not have additional copies of most of the reports listed, but copies of some of the completed reports can be loaned on request to organizations officially cooperating with the Atomic Energy Commission. Many Trace Elements reports have been made available to the public, either by open-file release, reproduction by Technical Information Service, Oak Ridge (referred to as TIS), by publication as a Geological Survey circular or bulletin or by a publication in a scientific journal. This information is given, following the title of the report. If the abstract of a Trace Element report has been published in Nuclear Science Abstracts, it is noted by the initials NSA following the title of the report. Part 2 is a reference guide to information on the Trace Elements program that is available to the public. This information is categorized according to the type of publication or release.

Trace Elements Investigations

Perspectives on LANDFIRE Prototype Project accuracy assessment

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a general overview of the many aspects of accuracy assessment pertinent to the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Prototype Project (LANDFIRE Prototype Project). The LANDFIRE Prototype formed a large and complex research and development project with many broad-scale data sets and products developed throughout its various stages. The scope of the project was defined as mapping and modeling vegetation, wildland fuel, and fire regime characteristics (Rollins and others, Ch. 2). Because of the breadth of the investigation, it is important to base our expectations for accuracy on a clear understanding of the intricacies, interdependencies, and scope of mapping and modeling LANDFIRE products. Our goals in this chapter are to: 1) provide relevant background information regarding accuracies and what was realistically achievable in the LANDFIRE Prototype, 2) provide background regarding our strategies for LANDFIRE National, 3) describe our actual LANDFIRE Prototype accuracy results in broad terms, and 4) provide recommendations for the national implementation of LANDFIRE. This chapter is not intended to provide an exhaustive list and description of all of the various accuracy-related issues and conclusions resulting from the LANDFIRE Prototype (for specific details, the reader will be referred to the appropriate chapters). Rather, this chapter is intended to be broad in scope and to place the many accuracy components within the context of the LANDFIRE Prototype and LANDFIRE National projects. Please note that Lunetta and Lyon (2004) provide an in-depth discussion of the current state of accuracy assessment within the science community.

General Technical Report

Development of a two-stage life cycle model to inform the Trap and Haul Program for Coho salmon in the Lewis River, Washington

Restoration of salmon populations in the upper Lewis River Basin depends on a trap-and-haul program owing to the Lewis River Hydroelectric Project (Project) operated by PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD (Utilities), which has been a barrier to salmon passage since the 1930s. Thus, sustaining the Coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ) population upstream of the Project currently depends on two fundamental factors: (1) the collection of upstream migrating adult Coho salmon at Merwin Dam, the lower most dam within the Project, and transporting them by truck to spawn above Swift Dam, the upper most dam within the Project; and (2) the collection of out-migrating juvenile Coho salmon at the downstream collection facility at Swift Dam for transport and release below the Project. The reintroduction program began once the downstream collection facility at Swift Dam was commissioned in late-2012 with the first year of transport data being collected in 2013. Over the past decade, the Utilities have been collecting data on juvenile outmigrants and adult fish returns at the dams. The need to construct a life cycle model for Lewis River anadromous fish was identified by the Lewis River Aquatic Technical Subgroup, with the understanding that many years (>15) of data collection are needed to adequately measure the life cycle production of coho salmon. Use of past data to construct models could help inform future data collection and provide a framework that can be updated annually to measure trap and haul program performance within a life cycle context (Note: Data are not currently available from PacifiCorp. Contact organization Chris Karchesky for further information). Because Coho salmon can live as long as five years, estimating demographic parameters for Coho salmon populations over their life cycle requires at least 10 or more years of data collection. Over the past decade, PacifiCorp has been collecting data on fish collection efficiency and the numbers of adult and juvenile salmon transported around the Lewis River dams, providing sufficient data to formulate a life cycle model that can guide future data collection efforts and provide preliminary information to resource managers The goal of the statistical life cycle model was to estimate annual production and survival during two critical life-stage transitions (1) the freshwater production from escapement of adults released upstream of Swift Dam, and the collection of downstream migrating juveniles at the passage facility at Swift Dam, and (2) the smolt-to-adult survival from the time of collection at Swift Dam to their return as adults. We used the Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment model to estimate juvenile production from the number of spawners. This approach allowed us to test for density dependence at current spawner abundances while estimating annual productivity, defined as the number of juveniles produced per spawner at low spawner abundance. Productivity was then expressed as a function of the number of juveniles collected and transported downstream of the Project. Because juvenile Fish Collection Efficiency (FCE) directly affects the number of juveniles that survive to continue downstream migration, FCE is a primary determinant of fish production. Consequently, the modeling framework is well suited to evaluate the performance of trap and haul programs within a life cycle context. The objectives of this study were to: (1) gather and collate available data on adult and juvenile Coho salmon at Merwin and Swift dams, (2) quantify adult escapement, juvenile abundance, and the age at outmigration and adult return, (3) describe, formulate, and fit the integrated population model (IPM) to the data, and (4) summarize our findings, identify data gaps, and identify potential opportunities for future studies that could provide information used to improve model estimation and inference. Our key findings were: (1) over and above the number of spawning females, FCE was the primary factor affecting productivity of Coho salmon above Swift Dam, (2) smolt-to-adult return (SAR) rates were relatively high considering that harvest was included in the estimate, averaging about 4.5% and ranging as high as 12.9%, and (3) juvenile capacity upriver of Swift Dam was difficult to estimate due to the limited range in spawning females over the time series of data, suggesting the model may be improved by collecting data at higher spawner abundances. In addition, by including FCE in the model, we estimated that the median pre-collection productivity, defined as the number of juveniles produced per spawner when FCE = 1, was 64 juveniles per spawner. Because this two-stage life cycle model partitions factors that affect fish production in river versus the ocean, the model estimates should help inform fishery managers about the overall role that fish collection at Swift Dam plays in the recovery and sustainability of Lewis River Coho salmon. By providing the model with (1) more years of data, (2) higher numbers of spawning females, and (3) data on age at juvenile migration in relation to age at adult return greater certainty in the estimates of capacity and SAR can be attained. Ultimately, information provided by the model can assist in the evaluation and continued improvement of the current trap and haul program to support anadromous fishes in the Lewis River Basin.

BioRxiv