Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Technical Publication”

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 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources
USGS2004

Water quality in the upper Illinois River basin: Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, 1999-2001

This report contains the major findings of a 1999?2001 assessment of water quality in the upper Illinois River Basin. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings in 51 major river basins and aquifer systems across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is discussed in terms of local, State, and regional issues. Conditions in a particular basin or aquifer system are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies, universities, public-interest groups, or in the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as the effects of agricultural and urban land use on water quality, human health, drinking water, source-water protection, hypoxia and excessive growth of algae and plants, pesticide registration, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report also is for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of streams and ground water in areas near where they live, and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the Nation. The water-quality conditions in the upper Illinois River Basin summarized in this report are discussed in detail in other reports that can be accessed from (http://il.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/uirb). Detailed technical information, data and analyses, collection and analytical methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report in addition to reports in this series from other basins can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site at (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa).

Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin↗
USGS2003

Water quality in the Northern Rockies Intermontane basins, Idaho, Montana, and Washington, 1999-2001

This report contains the major findings of a 1999–2001 assessment of water quality in the Northern Rockies Intermontane Basins. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings in 51 major river basins and aquifer systems across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is discussed in terms of local, State, and regional issues. Conditions in a particular basin or aquifer system are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies, universities, public interest groups, or in the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as the effects of agricultural and urban land use on water quality, human health, drinking water, source-water protection, hypoxia and excessive growth of algae and plants, pesticide registration, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report is also for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of streams and ground water in areas near where they live, and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the Nation. The water-quality conditions in the Northern Rockies Intermontane Basins summarized in this report are discussed in detail in other reports that can be accessed from (http://id.water.usgs.gov/nrok/index.html). Detailed technical information, data and analyses, collection and analytical methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report in addition to reports in this series from other basins can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa).

Idaho;Montana;Washington↗
USGS2018

Agricultural conservation practice implementation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides cost-share funding and technical assistance to support the implementation of agricultural conservation practices on farms throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Conservation implementation has been substantial in the time period for which digital records are available (from 2007 through 2017). Farmer participation in USDA conservation programs is voluntary and the implementation data are privacy protected. In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and USDA formed a cooperative partnership to analyze the effects of agricultural conservation on sediment, nutrient, and pesticide transport to the Chesapeake Bay. The USDA provides conservation implementation records for Chesapeake Bay farms to the USGS, with strict limitations on the use of the data to maintain confidentiality of site-specific farm data. The USGS aggregates the data to maintain farmer privacy, and subsequently provides the aggregated datasets to the public to inform conservation decision making processes. As part of that process, the USGS collaborates with the USDA to increase the understanding and quality of the USDA datasets and informs the interpretation of data records by Chesapeake Bay Program partners. The USGS obtains USDA conservation datasets in October of each year, performs data handling and quality checks as described in this document, and delivers aggregated summaries to the six Chesapeake Bay state jurisdictions for use in reporting conservation implementation to the Chesapeake Bay Partnership’s Annual Progress Review, which occurs in December of each year. The privacy protected, site-specific datasets are also used by USGS scientists to understand the effects of agricultural conservation on sediment, nutrient, and pesticide transport to the Chesapeake Bay at the small watershed scale. This publication describes the methods used to aggregate the datasets herein made available to the public at county and eight-digit hydrologic unit code watershed scales, reporting annual implementation from 2007 through 2017. It also documents the effect of geographic aggregation scale on the reportability of records and provides details regarding appropriate use and interpretation of the data records.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed↗
USGS2019

Evaluation of multiple laboratory performance and variability in analysis of recreational freshwaters by a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C)

There is interest in the application of rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods for recreational freshwater quality monitoring of the fecal indicator bacteria Escherichia coli ( E. coli ). In this study we determined the performance of 21 laboratories in meeting proposed, standardized data quality acceptance (QA) criteria and the variability of target gene copy estimates from these laboratories in analyses of 18 shared surface water samples by a draft qPCR method developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for E. coli . The participating laboratories ranged from academic and government laboratories with more extensive qPCR experience to “new” water quality and public health laboratories with relatively little previous experience in most cases. Failures to meet QA criteria for the method were observed in 24% of the total 376 test sample analyses. Of these failures, 39% came from two of the “new” laboratories. Likely factors contributing to QA failures included deviations in recommended procedures for the storage and preparation of reference and control materials. A master standard curve calibration model was also found to give lower overall variability in log 10 target gene copy estimates than the delta-delta Ct (ΔΔCt) calibration model used in previous EPA qPCR methods. However, differences between the mean estimates from the two models were not significant and variability between laboratories was the greatest contributor to overall method variability in either case. Study findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of multiple laboratories implementing this or other qPCR water quality monitoring methods with similar data quality acceptance criteria but suggest that additional practice and/or assistance may be valuable, even for some more generally experienced qPCR laboratories. Special attention should be placed on providing and following explicit guidance on the preparation, storage and handling of reference and control materials.

Water Research↗
USGS2019

Estimating potential wetland extent along selected river reaches in Indiana using streamflow statistics and flood-inundation mapping techniques

In this study potential wetland extents were estimated for 12 river reaches covering about 750 river miles in Indiana and parts of Illinois and Ohio. The study was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. This study follows and adds to the work completed in a pilot study and determines that potential wetland extents can be estimated using streamflow statistics, streamgage data, and flood-inundation mapping techniques. The study was designed to assist in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program is a voluntary program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service that provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners and Tribes to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring eligible land from agriculture. For a site to be eligible for wetland restoration, it should be in a zone with sustained or frequent flooding. This study calculated the flows that lasted for a period of 7 consecutive days on average at least once every 2 years (a value termed the “7MQ2”) for all the U.S. Geological Survey streamgages within the selected river reaches. These 7MQ2 flows were related to the stage-discharge tables for each streamgage, and a corresponding water-surface elevation was determined. Maps of estimated wetland extent were prepared using the 7MQ2 inundation elevation data in conjunction with bare-earth land-surface elevation data made publicly available through the online geospatial data clearinghouses of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. Flood-inundation mapping techniques were applied with the aid of geographic information system software to generate water-surface planes that represent inundation elevations associated with the 7MQ2 streamflow. Land-surface elevation data from high-resolution digital elevation models were subtracted from the water-surface planes to produce maps of wetland extent. The 12 map products, including datasets and geoprocessing tools, produced from this study will aid the National Resources Conservation Service and its partners with the onsite inundation-zone verification in agricultural land for potential restoration.

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio↗
USGS2004

Water quality in the Great and Little Miami River Basins, Ohio and Indiana, 1999-2001

This report contains the major findings of a 1999?2001 assessment of water quality in the Great and Little Miami River Basins. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings in 51 major river basins and aquifer systems across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is discussed in terms of local, State, and regional issues. Conditions in a particular basin or aquifer system are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies, universities, public interest groups, or in the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as the effects of agricultural and urban land use on water quality, human health, drinking water, source-water protection, hypoxia and excessive growth of algae and plants, pesticide registration, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report is also for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of streams and ground water in areas near where they live and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the Nation. The water-quality conditions in the Great and Little Miami River Basins summarized in this report are discussed in detail in other reports that can be accessed from (http://oh.water.usgs.gov/miam/intro.html). Detailed technical information, data and analyses, collection and analytical methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report, in addition to reports in this series from other basins, can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa).

Circular↗
USGS2005

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↗
USGS2007

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↗
USGS1997

U.S. Geological Survey Middle Rio Grande Basin Study; Proceedings of the first annual workshop, Denver, Colorado, November 12-14, 1996

Approximately 40 percent (about 600,000 people) of the total population of New Mexico lives within the Middle Rio Grande Basin, which includes the City of Albuquerque. Ongoing analyses of the central portion of the Middle Rio Grande Basin by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Albuquerque and other cooperators have shown that ground water in the basin is not as readily accessible as earlier studies indicated. A more complete characterization of the ground-water resources of the entire Middle Rio Grande Basin is hampered by a scarcity of data in the northern and southern areas of the basin. The USGS Middle Rio Grande Basin Study is a 5-year effort by the USGS and other agencies to improve the understanding of the hydrology, geology, and land-surface characteristics of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The primary objective of this study is to improve the understanding of the water resources of the basin. Of particular interest is to determine the extent of hydrologic connection between the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe Group aquifer. Additionally, ground-water quality affects the availability of water supplies in the basin. Improving the existing USGS- constructed ground-water flow model of the Middle Rio Grande Basin will integrate all the various tasks that improve our knowledge of the various components of the Middle Rio Grande water budget. Part of this improvement will be accompanied by extended knowledge of the aquifer system beyond the Albuquerque area into the northern and southern reaches of the basin. Other improvements will be based on understanding gained through process-oriented research and improved geologic characterization of the deposits. The USGS will study the hydrology, geology, and land-surface characteristics of the basin to provide the scientific information needed for water- resources management and for managers to plan for water supplies needed for a growing population. To facilitate exchange of information among the many USGS scientists working in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, yearly technical meetings are planned for the anticipated 5-year study. These meetings provide an opportunity to present research results and plan new field efforts. This report documents the results of research presented at the first technical workshop held in Denver, Colorado, in November 1996. The report is organized into this introduction, five chapters that focus on USGS investigations in progress in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, and three appendixes with supplemental information. The first chapter provides an overview of the USGS program in the basin. The second chapter describes geographic data and analysis efforts in the basin. The third chapter details work being done on the hydrogeologic framework of the basin. The fourth chapter describes studies on ground-water availability in the basin and is divided into three areas of research: ground-water/surface-water interaction, ground-water flow and aquifer properties, and recharge. The fifth chapter is devoted to an overview of New Mexico District Cooperative Program studies in the basin. Finally, the appendixes list publications and presentations made during the first year of the study and 1996 workshop attendees. The report concludes with a list of selected references relevant to the study. The information in this report presents preliminary results of an evolving study. As the study progresses and individual projects publish their results in more detail, the USGS hopes to expand the scientific basis needed for management decisions regarding the Middle Rio Grande Basin.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2004

Water quality in the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, 1999-2001

This report contains the major findings of a 1999?2001 assessment of water quality in the Mobile River Basin. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings in 51 major river basins and aquifer systems across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is discussed in terms of local, State, and regional issues. Conditions in a particular basin or aquifer system are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies, universities, public interest groups, or in the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as the effects of agricultural and urban land use on water quality, human health, drinking water, source-water protection, hypoxia and excessive growth of algae and plants, pesticide registration, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report is also for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of streams and ground water in areas near where they live, and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the Nation. The water-quality conditions in the Mobile River Basin summarized in this report are discussed in detail in other reports that can be accessed from the Mobile River Basin Web site (http://al.water.usgs.gov/pubs/mobl/mobl.html). Detailed technical information, data and analyses, collection and analytical methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report in addition to reports in this series from other basins can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa).

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee↗
USGS2004

Water quality in the lower Tennessee River Basin, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Georgia, 1999-2001

This report contains the major findings of a 1999?2001 assessment of water quality in the Lower Tennessee River Basin. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings in 51 major river basins and aquifer systems across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is discussed in terms of local, State, and regional issues. Conditions in a particular basin or aquifer system are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies, universities, public interest groups, or in the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as the effects of agricultural and urban land use on water quality, human health, drinking water, source-water protection, hypoxia and excessive growth of algae and plants, pesticide registration, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report is also for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of streams and ground water in areas where they live, and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the Nation. The water-quality conditions in the Lower Tennessee River Basin summarized in this report are discussed in detail in other reports that can be accessed from the Lower Tennessee River Basin Web site (http://tn.water.usgs.gov/lten/lten.html). Detailed technical information, data and analyses, collection and analytical methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report in addition to reports in this series from other basins can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa).

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee↗
USGS2016

Assessing the socioeconomic impact and value of open geospatial information

The production and accessibility of geospatial information including Earth observation is changing greatly both technically and in terms of human participation. Advances in technology have changed the way that geospatial data are produced and accessed, resulting in more efficient processes and greater accessibility than ever before. Improved technology has also created opportunities for increased participation in the gathering and interpretation of data through crowdsourcing and citizen science efforts. Increased accessibility has resulted in greater participation in the use of data as prices for Government-produced data have fallen and barriers to access have been reduced. The increase in participation in the production and in the use of data, defined as data democracy for this workshop, are having great impacts on economics and more generally on society. There is also a strong drive by governments around the world, as shown by the G8 Declaration in June 2013, to make public sector information and scientific data more widely accessible. These are respectively termed “open data” and “open research data.” This report summarizes discussion at the Workshop on Assessing the Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information held at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in October 2014. Workshop participants examined the consequences of expanding data democracy with a focus on its socioeconomic impacts. Evaluations were presented of state-of-the-art methods to assess these socioeconomic impacts, which included position papers and remarks by discussants. The workshop included discussions about the following topics: (1) increased and expanded information sources; (2) societal impacts, including approaches to economics assessments; (3) constraints to open access, including the demands for return on investment, specifications of intellectual property rights, and privacy issues; and (4) learning from the experiences of other data-rich domains, such as environmental management, internet businesses, health, and transportation. The workshop was a working meeting with strong participant engagement, leading to recommendations for action. The meeting included five topic-driven sessions and keynote presentations. Precirculated position papers for each panel session facilitated preparation and remarks by discussants. After the position papers are updated following the discussants’ remarks, it is planned to submit them for publication. The workshop included 68 participants coming from international organizations, the U.S. public and private sectors, nongovernmental organizations, and academia. Participants included policy makers and analysts, financial analysts, economists, information scientists, geospatial practitioners, and other discipline experts.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Summary of West Virginia Water-Resource Data through September 2008

The West Virginia Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State and Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of West Virginia each water year. A water year is the 12-month period beginning October 1 and ending September 30. These data, accumulated during many years, constitute a valuable database for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. These data are maintained in the National Water Information System (NWIS) and are available through its World-Wide Web interface, NWISWeb, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/nwis. Data can be retrieved in a variety of common formats, and a tutorial is available at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tutorial. Location information for all continuous-record gaging stations operated in West Virginia through September 2008 is provided in this report, as well as statistical summaries of the available daily records. This report can serve as an index to the daily records data available on the World-Wide Web. Hydrologic data for nearly all of the gaging stations identified in this report are also available in the annual publication series titled Water-Resources Data - West Virginia. This series of annual reports for West Virginia began with the 1961 water year with a report that contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. For the 1964 water year, a similar report was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year, the report format was changed to include data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface water and groundwater, and groundwater levels. Prior to the introduction of the Water-Resources Data - West Virginia series and for several water years concurrent with it, water-resources data for West Virginia were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage and on lake or reservoir contents and stage through September 1960 were published annually under the title Surface-Water Supply of the United States, Parts 6A and 6B. For the 1961 through 1970 water years, the data were published in two 5-year reports. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941 through 1970 water years were published annually under the title Quality of Surface Water of the United States, and water levels for the 1935 through 1974 water years were published under the title Ground-Water Levels in the United States. Many of the above mentioned Water-Supply Papers are available at the USGS Publications Warehouse (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov), and most of the others may be found in the collections of large libraries or may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, Colorado 80225. Annual reports on hydrologic data are published by the Geological Survey for all states, and each has an identification number consisting of the two-letter state abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, the 2005 water year report for West Virginia is identified as U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report WV-05-01. Water-Data Reports for West Virginia for 2001-2005 are available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/#WV. Water-Data Reports for water years prior to 2006 are for sale in paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Since the 2006 water year, the report is published online only and is available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/. When substantial errors in published records are discovered, the records are revised. Such revisions are routine and are made to records regardless of the age of the original records. Revisions have been made for many stations for which data are published in this report. The USGS National Water Information System always contains the most recent data revisions. For critical a

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Southern Salish Sea Habitat Map Series: Admiralty Inlet

In 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 initiated the Puget Sound Scientific Studies and Technical Investigations Assistance Program, designed to support research in support of implementing the Puget Sound Action Agenda. The Action Agenda was created in response to Puget Sound having been designated as one of 28 estuaries of national significance under section 320 of the U.S. Clean Water Act, and its overall goal is to restore the Puget Sound Estuary's environment by 2020. The Southern Salish Sea Mapping Project was funded by the Assistance Program request for proposals process, which also supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues. The issues include the recommendations of the Marine Protected Areas Work Group to the Washington State Legislature (Van Cleve and others, 2009), which endorses a Puget Sound and coast-wide marine conservation needs assessment, gap analysis of existing Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and recommendations for action. This publication is the first of four U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Maps that make up the Southern Salish Sea Mapping Project. The remaining three map blocks to be published in the future, located south of Admiralty Inlet, are shown in figure 1. Puget Sound is a deep, fjord-type estuary covering an area of 2,330 km 2 in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States (fig. 1). It is connected to the ocean by the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a turbulent passage approximately 160 km in length and 22 km wide at its west end, expanding to over 40 km wide at its east end (Thomson, 1994). During the Pleistocene, the area was occupied several times by lobes of continental ice, resulting in a complex basin-fill of glacial and interglacial deposits that are locally as thick as 1100 m (Johnson and others, 2001). The last glaciation, called the Fraser glaciation, began after 28,800±740 14 C yr B.P. when ice started a slow expansion (Clague, 1981). At peak advance the westward Juan de Fuca lobe reached the edge of the continental shelf through the Juan de Fuca Strait shortly before 14,460±200 14 C yr B.P. (Herzer and Bornhold, 1982). The southward Puget lobe advanced to its terminal position in Puget Sound by around 14,150 14 C yr B.P. (Porter and Swanson, 1998). Ice retreated from its maximum to northern Whidbey Island by 13,650±350 14 C yr B.P. (Dethier and others, 1995). Retreating glaciers resulted in a thick sequence of ice-contact, glacial-marine sediment, and early post-glacial sediments (Linden and Schurrer, 1988). These deposits have experienced the effects of a marine transgression followed by regression, resulting in a sea-level several tens of meters lower than the present day (Linden and Schurrer, 1988). A second transgression brought sea level to about the present level by around 5,470±120 14 C yr B.P. (Clague and others, 1982) establishing the present oceanographic and geologic environment Puget Sound is separated into four interconnected basins; Whidbey, Central (Main), Hood Canal, and South (Thomson, 1994). The Whidbey, Central, and Hood Canal basins are the three main branches of the Puget Sound estuary and are separated from the Strait of Juan de Fuca by a double sill at Admiralty Inlet. The Admiralty Inlet map area includes the Inlet and a portion of the Whidbey Basin (fig. 1). The shallower South Basin is separated by a sill at Tacoma Narrows and is highly branched with numerous finger inlets. Flow within Puget Sound is dominated by tidal currents of as much as 1 m/s at Admiralty Inlet, reducing to approximately 0.5 m/s in the Central Basin (Lavelle and others, 1988). The lack of silt and clay-sized sediments in the Admiralty Inlet map area is likely a result of the strong currents (see Ground-Truth Studies for the Admiralty Inlet Map Area, sheet 3). The subtidal component of flow reaches approximately 0.1 m/s and is driven by density gradients arising from the contrast in salty ocean water at the entrance and freshwater inputs from stream flow (Lavelle and others, 1988). The total freshwater input to Puget Sound is approximately 3.4 x 10 6 m 3 /day, primarily from the Skagit River (Cannon, 1983). The subtidal circulation mostly consists of a two-layered flow in the basins with fresher water exiting at the surface and saltier water entering at depth (Ebbesmeyer and Cannon, 2001). In general, surface waters flow north and deeper waters flow south; variations arise from wind effects that can drive a surface current in the same direction as the wind, and a baroclinic response in the lower layer to about 100-m depth (Matsuura and Cannon, 1997). Oceanographic properties are influenced by temporal forcing parameters such as reduced stream flow during the 2000-01 drought that increased surface salinity and decreased differences between surface and bottom waters (Newton and others, 2003). On offshore seismic-reflection profiles, Pleistocene strata (excluding latest Pleistocene glacial and post-glacial deposits) form a distinct seismic unit, bounded below by pre-Tertiary or Tertiary basement and above by typically flat-lying latest Pleistocene to Holocene deposits that fill in erosional or depositional relief (Johnson and others, 2001). Cores from central Puget Sound have accumulation rates that range from 85 to 1200 mg/cm 2 /yr, or 0.12 to 2.4 cm/yr; the highest accumulation rates are near the southern end of central Puget Sound (Carpenter and others, 1985). Carpenter and others (1985) un-weighted arithmetic mean of accumulation rates for central Puget Sound deeper stations is 480±340 (± one standard deviation) mg/cm 2 /yr. Lavelle and others (1985) also found rates as high as 1200 mg/cm 2 /yr over the past approximately 70 years in cores in the Central Basin off of and north and south of Elliott Bay. Puget Sound basin rates are comparable to rates in midshelf silt deposits on the Washington coast north of the Columbia River (Nittrouer and others, 1979). The deep subtidal (in other words, below SCUBA depths) habitats of Puget Sound are relatively poorly known. A few subtidal surveys exist for several habitat types from the 1960s and 1970s (reviewed in Dethier, 1990), using grab and box core data. The Dethier (1990) review divides habitat up into Coast and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) substrate, water column energy, and depth zones but does not attempt to map these habitats, rather it is an inventory of habitats found in the area and the flora and fauna associated with each habitat. The approach of the Southern Salish Sea Mapping project is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, and bottom-sediment sampling data. This approach is based in part on methods presented and data collection and product needs identified at the Washington State Seafloor Mapping Workshop (Washington State Seafloor Mapping Workshop Steering Committee, 2008), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists. The map products display seafloor geomorphology and substrate, and identify potential marine benthic habitats. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology maps rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. Oceanographic current and wave data is not included in this analysis, however, the accompanying geographic information system (GIS) data set is designed and intended to be combined with oceanographic and biologic data sets assembled by others in the future and some of the GIS data has already been incorporated in the unpublished Nature Conservancy Benthic Habitats of Puget Sound database. This publication includes four map sheets, explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a portable document format (PDF) file. ESRI ArcGIS compatible geotiffs (for example, bathymetry) and shapefiles (for example video observation points) will be available for download in the data catalog associated with this publication (Cochrane, 2015). An ArcGIS Project File with the symbology used to generate the map sheets is also provided. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html .

Washington↗
USGS2007

Applying radar technology to migratory bird conservation and management: Strengthening and expanding a collaborative

Executive Summary Understanding the factors affecting migratory bird and bat populations during all three phases of their life cycle—breeding, nonbreeding, and migration—is critical to species conservation planning. This includes the need for information about these species’ responses to natural challenges, as well as information about the effects of human activities and structures. Habitats and other resources critical to migrants during passage and stopover are being destroyed, degraded, and threatened by human activities. Birds and bats are also uniquely susceptible to human use of the airspace. Wind turbines, communication and power transmission towers, and other tall structures, known to cause bird and bat mortality, are being erected or proposed in increasing numbers across the country. In addition, the potential for bird/aircraft collisions poses human safety threats. Management and regulatory agencies, conservation organizations, and industry currently lack the information they need to meet their missions and statutory responsibilities. The biological data available from various radar technologies offer a unique opportunity to learn more about the spatiotemporal distribution patterns, flight characteristics, and habitat use of “aero-fauna.” Recognizing the opportunities presented by radar technologies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and university partners collaborated first on individual projects and then in a broader, informal “collaborative” to coordinate their radar-related research and work together to develop the suite of products needed for conservation of birds and bats. Having produced two summary documents (Sojda and others, 2005; Ruth and others, 2005), the next objective was to convene a workshop for researchers, management and regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. The focus of this initial workshop was on strengthening the existing USGS-USFWS-university partnership and expanding the “collaborative” to include new Federal agency partners. The subject matter was centered on discussing available technologies, appropriate applications, management-related needs, and ways to strengthen collaborative research and conservation efforts. The workshop opened with presentations about the history of the “radar collaborative,” a description of the workshop objectives and focuses, and a summary of resource management and regulatory needs. Scientific presentations describing current research projects or subjects followed, given by USGS scientists, as well as scientists from other Federal agencies, academia, conservation and ornithological organizations, and a private contracting firm. Presenters addressed a wide variety of management issues including siting of wind-power facilities, bird/aircraft collisions, effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on bird migration, bird use of Conservation Reserve Program land, defining bird migration patterns at a broad regional scale, and associating migrant birds with their stopover habitats. Presentations described a variety of radar technologies including NEXRAD weather surveillance radar, modified mobile marine radar, military tracking radar, pencil beam radar, and dual polarization radar, as well as complementary techniques and analysis methods such as acoustic monitoring, thermal imaging, artificial intelligence, and individual-based modeling. Key issues, themes, and questions identified during the open discussions that followed fell into five main categories: (1) agency needs and challenges; (2) radar technology and applications—technical questions and issues; (3) tools and resources for managers and researchers; (4) standardization of protocols; and (5) collaborative opportunities. Participants identified the following management, regulatory, or business issues facing them which may be addressed with radar technologies: tall structures; wind turbines; identification and protection of key habitats; assessment of management activities; and bird/aircraft strikes. Participants frequently expressed the need for specific information about which radar technologies are best used for answering particular questions. User groups emphasized the importance of clear, defensible scientific information on which they can base their activities. In turn, researchers emphasized their need for clearly defined, specific questions from managers so that they can design and conduct the required research. Discussions about technical issues requiring further research and collaboration included target identity, ground-truthing, linking migrants to habitat, and standardized protocols for applied research. Workshop participants identified and endorsed a series of seven action items that would promote collaboration and begin to address key issues identified at the workshop: Action Item #1 : Establish a working subgroup to address large-scale surveillance radar standardization issues. Action Item #2 : Establish a working subgroup to address small-scale radar standardization issues. Action Item #3 : Bring management and regulatory agencies together to identify the three most important information needs for each key management issue relating to radar technologies. Action Item #4 : Develop Fact Sheet(s) to provide information about radar technology applications to migratory bird and bat conservation issues. Action Item #5 : Create a “radar collaborative” Website to provide information about radar biology applications, contacts, publications, and so forth. Action Item #6 : Formalize and expand the USGS-USFWS “radar collaborative.” Action Item #7 : Advance basic research, such as target identity and validation, which will support and improve our abilities to apply radar technologies to conservation objectives. There was considerable interest in expanding the “radar collaborative” to include those agencies, organizations, and industries represented at the workshop. It was felt that the publication of the workshop proceedings, implementation of action items, and additional future meetings or workshops will be crucial in strengthening the “radar collaborative” effort and promoting the use of these valuable technologies for conserving migratory species.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Monograph for using paleoflood data in Water Resources Applications

The Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) Technical Committee on Surface Water Hydrology is sponsoring a Task Committee on Paleoflood Hydrology to prepare a monograph entitled, "Use of Paleoflood and Historical Data in Water Resources Applications." This paper introduces the subject of paleoflood hydrology and discusses the topics, which are expected to be included in the monograph. The procedure for preparing and reviewing the monograph will also be discussed. The paleoflood hydrology monograph will include a discussion of types of hydrologic and paleoflood data, paleostage indicators, flood chronology, modeling methods, interpretation issues, water resources applications and case studies, and research needs. Paleoflood data collection and analysis techniques will be presented, and various applications in water-resources investigations will be provided. An overview of several flood frequency analysis approaches, which consider historical and paleoflood data along with systematic streamflow records, will be presented. The monograph is scheduled for completion and publication in 2001. Copyright ASCE 2004.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2013

Metallogenic belt and mineral deposit maps of northeast Asia

This report contains explanatory material and summary tables for lode mineral deposits and placer districts (Map A, sheet 1) and metallogenic belts of Northeast Asia (Maps B, C, and D on sheets 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The map region includes eastern Siberia, southeastern Russia, Mongolia, northeast China, and Japan. A large group of geologists—members of the joint international project, Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of Northeast Asia—prepared the maps, tables, and introductory text. This is a cooperative project with the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian National University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolian Technical University, Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia, Geological Research Institute, Jilin University, China Geological Survey, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Geological Survey of Japan, and U.S. Geological Survey. This report is one of a series of reports on the mineral resources, geodynamics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia. Companion studies include (1) a detailed geodynamics map of Northeast Asia (Parfenov and others, 2003); (2) a compilation of major mineral deposit models (Rodionov and Nokleberg, 2000; Rodionov and others, 2000); (3) a series of metallogenic belt maps (Obolenskiy and others, 2004); (4) location map of lode mineral deposits and placer districts of Northeast Asia (Ariunbileg and others, 2003b); (5) descriptions of metallogenic belts (Rodionov and others, 2004); (6) a database on significant metalliferous and selected nonmetalliferous lode deposits and selected placer districts (Ariunbileg and others, 2003a); and (7) a series of summary project publications (Ariunbileg and 74 others, 2003b).

Asia↗
USGS1999

Digital mapping techniques '99 -- workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '99 (DMT'99) workshop was attended by 91 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 30 state geological surveys (see Appendix A ). This workshop was similar in nature to the first two meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), and in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a). This year's meeting was hosted by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, from May 19 to 22, 1999, on the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, ìpublishingî includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. Especially to support the interest in map preparation and publication, five representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The three annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/datacaptureWG.html ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report↗