Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Scientific Investigations Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2009

Evaluation of Structural Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff in Beaufort and Colleton Counties, South Carolina, 2005-2006

As part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program mandated in the Clean Water Act, the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) is required to address the quality of stormwater runoff from state-maintained roadways. From 2005 to 2006, the SCDOT and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) worked cooperatively in Beaufort and Colleton Counties, South Carolina (SC), to evaluate the performance of four different structural devices that served as best management practices (BMPs). These structural devices were installed to lessen the potential effects of stormwater runoff on water quality in waterways near state roads. The purpose of this Fact Sheet is to summarize results published in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5150. The report documents the ability of these four BMP devices to remove suspended sediment, metals, nutrients, and organics compounds in stormwater runoff. The quantity of rainfall and stormflow and quality of stormwater entering and leaving the BMPs were monitored during 12-13 storms over a 21-month period. The results provide the SCDOT with quantitative information to evaluate whether or not the BMPs effectively enhanced stormwater quality. This information can be used by the SCDOT and other State, local, and Federal agencies in the selection of appropriate BMPs for future installation.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2011

Assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to develop a methodology and conduct an assessment of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas (GHG) fluxes in the Nation's ecosystems. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed and published the methodology (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5233) and has assembled an interdisciplinary team of scientists to conduct the assessment over the next three to four years, commencing in October 2010. The assessment will fulfill specific requirements of the EISA by (1) quantifying, measuring, and monitoring carbon sequestration and GHG fluxes using national datasets and science tools such as remote sensing, and biogeochemical and hydrological models, (2) evaluating a range of management and restoration activities for their effects on carbon-sequestration capacity and the reduction of GHG fluxes, and (3) assessing effects of climate change and other controlling processes (including wildland fires) on carbon uptake and GHG emissions from ecosystems.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2011

Using models for the optimization of hydrologic monitoring

Hydrologists are often asked what kind of monitoring network can most effectively support science-based water-resources management decisions. Currently (2011), hydrologic monitoring locations often are selected by addressing observation gaps in the existing network or non-science issues such as site access. A model might then be calibrated to available data and applied to a prediction of interest (regardless of how well-suited that model is for the prediction). However, modeling tools are available that can inform which locations and types of data provide the most 'bang for the buck' for a specified prediction. Put another way, the hydrologist can determine which observation data most reduce the model uncertainty around a specified prediction. An advantage of such an approach is the maximization of limited monitoring resources because it focuses on the difference in prediction uncertainty with or without additional collection of field data. Data worth can be calculated either through the addition of new data or subtraction of existing information by reducing monitoring efforts (Beven, 1993). The latter generally is not widely requested as there is explicit recognition that the worth calculated is fundamentally dependent on the prediction specified. If a water manager needs a new prediction, the benefits of reducing the scope of a monitoring effort, based on an old prediction, may be erased by the loss of information important for the new prediction. This fact sheet focuses on the worth or value of new data collection by quantifying the reduction in prediction uncertainty achieved be adding a monitoring observation. This calculation of worth can be performed for multiple potential locations (and types) of observations, which then can be ranked for their effectiveness for reducing uncertainty around the specified prediction. This is implemented using a Bayesian approach with the PREDUNC utility in the parameter estimation software suite PEST (Doherty, 2010). The techniques briefly described earlier are described in detail in a U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report available on the Internet (Fienen and others, 2010; http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5159/). This fact sheet presents a synopsis of the techniques as applied to a synthetic model based on a model constructed using properties from the Lake Michigan Basin (Hoard, 2010).

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2012

Effects of brush management on the hydrologic budget and water quality in and adjacent to Honey Creek State Natural Area, Comal County, Texas, 2001--10

Woody vegetation, including ashe juniper ( Juniperus ashei ), has encroached on some areas in central Texas that were historically oak grassland savannah. Encroachment of woody vegetation is generally attributed to overgrazing and fire suppression. Removing the ashe juniper and allowing native grasses to reestablish in the area as a brush management conservation practice (hereinafter referred to as "brush management") might change the hydrology in the watershed. These hydrologic changes might include changes to surface-water runoff, evapotranspiration, or groundwater recharge. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with Federal, State, and local partners, examined the hydrologic effects of brush management in two adjacent watersheds in Comal County, Tex. Hydrologic data were collected in the watersheds for 3-4 years (pre-treatment) depending on the type of data, after which brush management occurred on one watershed (treatment watershed) and the other was left in its original condition (reference watershed). Hydrologic data were collected in the study area for another 6 years (post-treatment). These hydrologic data included rainfall, streamflow, evapotranspiration, and water quality. Groundwater recharge was not directly measured, but potential groundwater recharge was calculated by using a simplified mass balance approach. This fact sheet summarizes highlights of the study from the USGS Scientific Investigations Report on which it is based.

Texas↗
USGS2013

Modeled future peak streamflows in four coastal Maine rivers

To safely and economically design bridges and culverts, it is necessary to compute the magnitude of peak streamflows that have specified annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs). These peak flows are also needed for effective floodplain management. Annual precipitation and air temperature in the northeastern United States are in general projected to increase during the 21st century (Hayhoe and other, 2007). It is therefore important for engineers and resource managers to understand how peak flows may change in the future. This Fact Sheet, prepared in cooperation with the Maine Department of Transportation, presents a summary of modeled changes in peak flows at four basins in coastal Maine on the basis of projected changes in air temperature and precipitation. The full Scientific Investigations Report (Hodgkins and Dudley, 2013) is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5080/.

Maine↗
USGS2016

USGS mineral-resource assessment of Sagebrush Focal Areas in the western United States

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have completed an assessment of the mineral-resource potential of nearly 10 million acres of Federal and adjacent lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. The assessment of these lands, identified as Sagebrush Focal Areas, was done at the request of the Bureau of Land Management. The assessment results will be used in the decision-making process that the Department of the Interior is pursuing toward the protection of large areas of contiguous sagebrush habitat for the greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) in the Western United States. The detailed results of this ambitious study are published in the five volumes of USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5089 and seven accompanying data releases.

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2023

Magnitude and frequency of floods for rural streams in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, 2017—Summary

Reliable flood-frequency estimates are important for hydraulic structure design and floodplain management in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Annual peak streamflows (hereafter, referred to as peak flows) measured at 965 U.S. Geological Survey streamgages were used to compute flood-frequency estimates with annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs) of 50, 20, 10, 4, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.2 percent. These AEPs correspond to flood-recurrence intervals of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 years, respectively. A subset of these streamgages (801) were used to develop equations to predict the AEP flood flows at ungaged stream locations. This study was completed by the USGS in cooperation with the Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina Departments of Transportation and the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, and the results are summarized in this fact sheet. The complete results and the supporting data are presented in the companion scientific investigations report and data release.

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina↗
USGS2026

Water in, no water out—How a rain garden reduced stormwater at City Hall in Gary, Indiana

Introduction Urban stormwater runoff can be an issue in many communities because it may cause flooding, overwhelm sewage treatment plants, and negatively affect water quality in local streams, lakes, and other waterbodies. Stormwater runoff can be controlled by using "green infrastructure," which consists of engineered structures that imitate nature to collect stormwater runoff, reduce the amount of runoff, and improve water quality. In 2014, the city of Gary, Indiana implemented green infrastructure to reduce the negative effects of urban stormwater on Lake Michigan and its tributaries. From November 2016 to June 2017, the mostly impermeable parking lot in front of Gary City Hall was removed and rebuilt with a rain garden. The U.S. Geological Survey studied how the rain garden reduced stormwater runoff and published results in Scientific Investigations Report 2022–5101.

Indiana↗
USGS2007

Rapid Method for Escherichia coli in the Cuyahoga River

This study is a continuation of a previous U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) project in cooperation with the National Park Service at Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Brecksville, Ohio. A rapid (1-hour) method for detecting Escherichia coli (E. coli) in water was tested and compared to the standard (24-hour) method for determining E. coli concentrations. Environmental data were collected to determine turbidity, rainfall, and streamflow at the time of sampling. In the previous study (2004-5), data collected were used to develop predictive models to determine recreational water quality in the river at two sites within the park. Data collected during this continued study (2006) were used to test these models. At Jaite, a centrally located site within the park, the model correctly predicted exceedances or nonexceedances of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency maximum for recreational water quality in 80 percent of samples. At Old Portage, a site near the upstream boundary of the park, the model correctly predicted recreational water quality in 58 percent of samples. All of the data collected in 2004-6 will be used to develop more accurate models for use in future studies. Analysis and discussion of model results are scheduled to be included in an upcoming USGS Scientific Investigations Report.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

County-level estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus from animal manure for the conterminous United States, 2002

County-level nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from animal manure for the conterminous United States for 2002 were estimated from animal populations from the 2002 Census of Agriculture by using methods described in U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5012. These estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus from animal manure were compiled in support of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

Evaporation from Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, Nevada and Arizona, 2010–2019

Evaporation-rate estimates at Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, Nevada and Arizona, were based on eddy covariance and available energy measurements from March 2010 through April 2019 at Lake Mead and May 2013 through April 2019 at Lake Mohave. The continuous data needed to compute monthly evaporation were collected from floating-platform and land-based measurement stations located at each reservoir. Collected data include latent- and sensible-heat fluxes, net radiation, air temperature, wind speed, humidity, and water-temperature profiles. Data collection, analysis methods, and monthly evaporation results for Lake Mead through February 2012 were documented in a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific-Investigations Report, 2013–5229. Monthly evaporation and associated datasets for both reservoirs through April 2015 were published in a USGS Data Release (https://doi.org/10.5066/F79C6VG3). Average annual evaporation at Lake Mead was 1,896 millimeters (mm), which is a 10 percent difference from the 1,718 mm average annual evaporation at Lake Mohave; this was primarily due to differences in available energy. Average annual available energy at Lake Mead was 139 watts per square meter (W/m 2 ), which is an 18 percent difference from the 116 W/m 2 average annual available energy at Lake Mohave. Differences in available energy are driven by differences in advected heat between Lake Mead and Lake Mohave; advected heat at Lake Mohave is lower due to colder inflows and warmer outflows. Lake Mead monthly evaporation estimates for this study compare reasonably well to the Bureau of Reclamation’s 24-Month Study (24MS) evaporation coefficients, which are based on pioneering studies from the 1950s. Temporal trends in this study indicate that the effects of heat storage at Lake Mead were underestimated in the 24MS, particularly during the fall months when energy was released from the lake. Mean monthly evaporation rates at Lake Mead were greater than Lake Mohave from June through November during the study period. The seasonal pattern of evaporation at Lake Mohave in this study indicates that the effects of available energy were underestimated in the 24MS coefficients for this reservoir, and that evaporation was substantially overestimated from spring through summer during the study period of 2013 through 2019.

Arizona, Nevada↗
USGS2012

Central Basin and Range Ecoregion: Chapter 20 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

This chapter has been modified from original material published in Soulard (2006), entitled “Land-cover trends of the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion” (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5288). The Central Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) encompasses approximately 343,169 km² (132,498 mi2) of land bordered on the west by the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, on the east by the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains Ecoregion, on the north by the Northern Basin and Range and the Snake River Basin Ecoregions, and on the south by the Mojave Basin and Range and the Colorado Plateaus Ecoregions (fig. 1). Most of the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion is located in Nevada (65.4 percent) and Utah (25.1 percent), but small segments are also located in Idaho (5.6 percent), California (3.7 percent), and Oregon (0.2 percent). Basin-and-range topography characterizes the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion: wide desert valleys are bordered by parallel mountain ranges generally oriented northsouth. There are more than 33 peaks within the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion that have summits higher than 3,000 m (10,000 ft), but valleys in the ecoregion are also high, most having elevations above 1,200 m (4,000 ft) (Grayson, 1993).

California;Idaho;Nevada;Oregon;Utah↗
USGS2012

Sierra Nevada Ecoregion: Chapter 15 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

This chapter has been modified from original material published in Raumann and Soulard (2007), entitled “Land-cover trends of the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, 1973–2000” (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5011). The Sierra Nevada Ecoregion covers approximately 53,413 km² (20,623 mi²) with the majority of the area (98 percent) in California and the remainder in Nevada (fig. 1) (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). The Sierra Nevada Ecoregion is generally oriented north-south and is essentially defined by the Sierra Nevada physiographic province, which separates California’s Central Valley to the west from the Great Basin to the east. It is bounded by seven other ecoregions: Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Ecoregion on the west; Klamath Mountains and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills Ecoregions on the north; Southern California Mountains Ecoregion on the south; and Northern Basin and Range, Central Basin and Range, and Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregions on the east (fig. 1). The Sierra Nevada range is a granitic batholith, much of which is exposed at higher elevations, with a gradual western slope and a generally steep eastern escarpment.

California;Nevada↗
USGS2012

Southern California Mountains Ecoregion: Chapter 18 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

This chapter has been modified from original material published in Soulard and others (2007), entitled “Land-cover trends of the Southern California Mountains ecoregion” (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5235). The Southern California Mountains Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) encompasses approximately 17,871 km² (6,900 mi²) of land located entirely within California. The ecoregion is bounded on the far north by the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, on the east by the Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion, on the southeast by the Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregion, and on the west and north by Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Ecoregion. In addition, the northern part of the ecoregion is separated from the Central California Valley Ecoregion by a narrow strip of the Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Ecoregion (fig. 1).

California↗
USGS2012

Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion: Chapter 29 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

This chapter has been modified from original material published in Sleeter and Raumann (2006), entitled “Land-cover trends in the Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion” (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5098). The Mojave Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) covers approximately 130,922 km 2 (50,549 mi 2 ) in the southwestern United States. The ecoregion, which encompasses parts of four states, includes the Mojave Desert and much of the other desert areas in southeastern California, as well as a large part of the southern Nevada desert (fig. 1). The ecoregion is bounded on the north by the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion, on the east by the Colorado Plateaus and the Arizona/New Mexico Plateau Ecoregions, on the south by the Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregion, and on the west by the Southern California Mountains and the Sierra Nevada Ecoregions.

Arizona;California;Nevada;Utah↗
USGS2002

Preface

This issue of Hydrobiologia brings together a series of papers resulting from an intensified effort to describe the current status of the physical and biological conditions present at California's Salton Sea. Most of the studies were contract investigations that were part of a project initiated in January 1998 to pursue the improvement of environmental conditions at the Salton Sea. The remainder are independent investigations resulting in information of importance for the Salton Sea Restoration Project. The information provided by those investigations resulting in information of importance for the Salton Sea Restoration Project. The information provided by those investigations is the most holistic assembly of scientific knowledge about the Salton Sea ever brought together in a single publication. The resulting findings provide an important foundation of knowledge for what has been stated to be '. . . one of the worlds' most dynamic salt lakes . . .' (Hart et al., 1998). We hope this publication will serve as a catalyst to stimulate additional scientific investigations that will further enhance understanding of the dynamics of this unique ecosystem. The purpose for these introductory comments is to place the scientific investigations reported on and the Salton Sea Restoration Project in context and entities, and to one another.

California↗
USGS2015

Characterizing and simulating sediment loads and transport in the lower part of the San Antonio River Basin

This extended abstract is based on the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Reports by Crow et al. (2013) and Banta and Ockerman (2014). Suspended sediment in rivers and streams can play an important role in ecological health of rivers and estuaries and consequently is an important issue for water-resource managers. The quantity and type of suspended sediment can affect the biological communities (Wood and Armitage, 1997), the concentration and movement of natural constituents and anthropogenic contaminants (Moran and others, 2012), and the amount of sediment deposition in coastal environments (Milliman and Meade, 1983). To better understand suspended-sediment characteristics in the San Antonio River Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the San Antonio River Authority and Texas Water Development Board, conducted a two-phase study to (1) collect and analyze sediment data to characterize sediment conditions in the San Antonio River downstream of San Antonio, Texas, and (2) develop and calibrate a watershed model to simulate hydrologic conditions and suspended-sediment loads for four watersheds in the San Antonio River Basin, downstream from San Antonio, Texas.

Texas↗
USGS2015

Applications of optical sensors for high-frequency water-quality monitoring and research

The recent commercial availability of in-situ optical sensors, together with new techniques for data collection and analysis, provides the opportunity to monitor a wide range of water-quality constituents over time scales during which environmental conditions actually change. Traditional approaches for data collection (daily to monthly discrete samples) are often limited by high sample collection, processing, and analytical costs, difficult site access, and logistical challenges, particularly for long-term sampling at a large number of sites. Optical sensors that continuously measure constituents in the environment by absorbance or fluorescence properties (Figure 1) have had a long history of use in oceanography for measuring highly resolved concentrations and fluxes of organic matter, nutrients, and algal material. However, much of the work using commercially-available optical sensors in rivers and streams has taken place in only the last few years. Figure 1. [NOT SHOWN] Optical sensor technology is now sufficiently developed to warrant broader application for research and monitoring in coastal and freshwater systems, and the United States Geological Survey (a U.S. science agency) is now using these sensors in a variety of research and monitoring programs to better understand water quality in-situ and in real-time. Examples are numerous and range from the applications of nitrate sensors for calculating loads to estuaries susceptible to hypoxia (Pellerin et al., 2014) to the use of fluorometers to estimate methymercury fluxes (Bergamaschi et al., 2011) and disinfection byproduct formation (Carpenter et al., 2013). Transmitting these data in real-time provides information that can be used for early trend detection, help identify monitoring gaps critical for water management, and provide science-based decision support across a range of issues related to water quality, freshwater ecosystems, and human health. Despite the value of these sensors, collecting data that meet high-quality standards requires investment in and adherence to tested and established methods and protocols for sensor operation and data management (Pellerin et al., 2013). For example, optical sensor measurements can be strongly influenced by a variety of matrix effects, including water temperature, inner filtering from highly colored water, and scattering of light by suspended particles (Downing et al., 2012). Characterizing and correcting sensors for these effects – as well as the continued development of common methodologies and protocols for sensor use – will be critical to ensuring comparable measurements across sites and over time. In addition, collaborative efforts such as the Nutrient Sensor Challenge (www.nutrients-challenge.org) will continue to accelerate the development, production and use of affordable, reliable and accurate sensors for a range of environments. REFERENCES Bergamaschi .B.A., Fleck J.A., Downing B.D., Boss E., Pellerin B.A., Ganju N.K., Schoellhamer D.H., Byington A.A., Heim W.A., Stephenson M., Fujii R. (2011), Methyl mercury dynamics in a tidal wetland quantified using in situ optical measurements. Limnology and Oceanography, 56(4): 1355-1371. Carpenter K.D., Kraus T.E.C., Goldman J.H., Saraceno J., Downing B.D., Bergamaschi B.A., McGhee G., Triplett T. (2013), Sources and Characteristics of Organic Matter in the Clackamas River, Oregon, Related to the Formation of Disinfection By-products in Treated Drinking Water: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5001, 78 p. Downing .B.D., Pellerin B.A., Bergamaschi B.A., Saraceno J., Kraus T.E.K. (2012), Seeing the light: The effects of particles, temperature and inner filtering on in situ CDOM fluorescence in rivers and streams. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 10: 767-775. Pellerin B.A., Bergamaschi B.A., Downing B.D., Saraceno J., Garrett J.D., Olsen L.D. (2013), Optical Techniques for the Determination of Nitrate in En

Conference Paper↗