USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Water Science and Engineering”

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.

406 records · Page 23Linked to original sources

Concentrations and distributions of metals associated with dissolved organic matter from the Suwannee River (GA, USA)

Concentrations and distributions of metals in Suwannee River (SR) raw filtered surface water (RFSW) and dissolved organic matter (DOM) processed by reverse osmosis (RO), XAD-8 resin (for humic and fulvic acids [FA]), and XAD-4 resin (for “transphilic” acids) were analyzed by asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AsFlFFF). SR samples were compared with DOM samples from Nelson's Creek (NLC), a wetland-draining stream in northern Michigan; previous International Humic Substances Society (IHSS) FA and RO samples from the SR; and an XAD-8 sample from Lake Fryxell (LF), Antarctica. Despite application of cation exchange during sample processing, all XAD and RO samples contained substantial metal concentrations. AsFlFFF fractograms allowed metal distributions to be characterized as a function of DOM component molecular weight (MW). In SR RFSW, Fe, Al, and Cu were primarily associated with intermediate to higher than average MW DOM components. SR RO, XAD-8, and XAD-4 samples from May 2012 showed similar MW trends for Fe and Al but Cu tended to associate more with lower MW DOM. LF DOM had abundant Cu and Zn, perhaps due to amine groups that should be present due to its primarily algal origins. None of the fractograms showed obvious evidence for mineral nanoparticles, although some very small mineral nanoparticles might have been present at trace concentrations. This research suggests that AsFlFFF is important for understanding how metals are distributed in different DOM samples (including IHSS samples), which may be key to metal reactivity and bioavailability.

Georgia↗

Seismic hazards and land-use planning

Basic earth-science data are necessary for a realistic assessment of seismic hazards and as a basis for limiting corrective land-use controls only to those areas of greatest hazard. For example, the location, character, and amount of likely displacement and activity of surface faulting can be predicted if detailed geologic maps and seismic data are available and are augmented by field studies at critical localities. Because few structures can withstand displacement of their foundations, they should be located off active fault traces, the distance varying with the character of faulting, the certainty with which fault traces are known, and the importance of the structure. Recreational activities and other nonoccupancy land uses should be considered for fault zone areas where land is under pressure for development; elsewhere, such areas should remain as open space. Two methods of predicting ground shaking effects have applications to land-use decisions: (1) Relative earthquake effects can be related to firmness of the ground and can be used in a gross way to allocate population density in the absence of more sophisticated analyses; and (2) intensity maps, based on, (a) damage from former earthquakes, or (b) a qualitative analyses of geologic units added to a design earthquake, can be helpful both for general and specific plans. Theoretical models are used with caution to predict ground motion for critical structures to be located at specific sites with unique foundation conditions. Fully adequate methods of assessing possible shaking remain to be developed. Where land-use decisions do not reflect likely ground shaking effects, stringent building codes are needed, particularly for important structures. Ground failure (landsliding, ground cracking and lurching, differential settlement, sand boils, and subsidence) commonly results from liquefaction, loss of soil strength, or compaction. Areas suspected of being most likely to fail should not be developed unless detailed site studies can demonstrate the hazard does not exist or can be overcome. Various methods can be used to reduce the high, long-term public costs that follow development of unstable ground. However, areas subject to tectonic deformation generally cannot be predicted nor can effects of such deformation be minimized. Large water waves, such as produced by tsunamis, seiches, and dam failure or overtopping, can be anticipated in many places. Their effects can be lessened by land-use regulations similar to flood-plain zoning, restrictions on location of critical structures, and appropriate warning systems. Many local, state, and federal government agencies, universities, and private consultants may be able to assist planners by advising them of pertinent data and where those data can be obtained. Interpretation of the data for an evaluation of seismic risk commonly requires a team of planners, geologists, and soil and structural engineers.

Circular↗

Upriver migrating sea lamprey exhibit similar responses to hydrodynamic features as other up and downriver-moving species

Identifying commonalities in how fish navigate rivers near infrastructure will enhance water operations and design by improving our ability to predict engineering outcomes (e.g., barrier construction/removal, fish passage installation) in novel settings before the cost of real-world implementation. Evidence from intermediate-scale computer models (time scales of minutes to days and spatial scales <2 km) suggests that fish movement behavior in rivers is frequently governed by responses to one or more of the following hydrodynamic features: (1) flow direction (i.e., rheotaxis), (2) flow velocity magnitude, (3) turbulence, and (4) depth, plus (5) the integration of information over recent time periods (i.e., memory/experience). However, the lack of consistent modeling approaches, infrequent assessment of each response in isolation and combination, and a focus on a limited number of species means the generality of these responses is uncertain. We use a computer model, specifically a pattern-oriented modeling approach incorporating individual based models (IBMs), to apply responses to the four hydrodynamic features plus memory/experience in different combinations to study their value for reproducing the movement of an infrequently modeled species and lifestage, upriver migrating adult sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus . The study site was the region downstream of the Sault Ste. Marie lock and dam complex located between Canada and the U.S.A on the St. Marys River joining Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Our analysis indicates that rheotaxis and a response to velocity magnitude as well as recent past experience improve sea lamprey spatio-temporal movement prediction compared to other, simpler forms of modeled behavior. Sea lamprey movement is also biased toward lower levels of turbulence (e.g., turbulent kinetic energy) or its precursor (i.e., the spatial gradient in water speed). A response to water depth was not found to be important, but the modeled domain was two-dimensional which limited our assessment. As similar responses to hydrodynamic features are found in very different fish, commonalities appear to underlie river navigation across a range of species and life stages that share the goal-oriented behavior of upriver and downriver movement. The systematic approach of our analysis highlights the accuracy trade-offs of each response, individually and in combination, that often accompany alternative behavioral formulations in a computer model of fish movement. The model structure provides a framework to which future findings from the analyses of additional species in different contexts can be added.

Sault Ste. Marie lock and dam complex in the St. M↗

Categorizing active marine acoustic sources based on their potential to affect marine animals

Marine acoustic sources are widely used for geophysical imaging, oceanographic sensing, and communicating with and tracking objects or robotic vehicles in the water column. Under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act and similar regulations in several other countries, the impact of controlled acoustic sources is assessed based on whether the sound levels received by marine mammals meet the criteria for harassment that causes certain behavioral responses. This study describes quantitative factors beyond received sound levels that could be used to assess how marine species are affected by many commonly deployed marine acoustic sources, including airguns, high-resolution geophysical sources (e.g., multibeam echosounders, sidescan sonars, subbottom profilers, boomers, and sparkers), oceanographic instrumentation (e.g., acoustic doppler current profilers, split-beam fisheries sonars), and communication/tracking sources (e.g., acoustic releases and locators, navigational transponders). Using physical criteria about the sources, such as source level, transmission frequency, directionality, beamwidth, and pulse repetition rate, we divide marine acoustic sources into four tiers that could inform regulatory evaluation. Tier 1 refers to high-energy airgun surveys with a total volume larger than 1500 in 3 (24.5 L) or arrays with more than 12 airguns, while Tier 2 covers the remaining low/intermediate energy airgun surveys. Tier 4 includes most high-resolution geophysical, oceanographic, and communication/tracking sources, which are considered unlikely to result in incidental take of marine mammals and therefore termed de minimis . Tier 3 covers most non-airgun seismic sources, which either have characteristics that do not meet the de minimis category (e.g., some sparkers) or could not be fully evaluated here (e.g., bubble guns, some boomers). We also consider the simultaneous use of multiple acoustic sources, discuss marine mammal field observations that are consistent with the de minimis designation for some acoustic sources, and suggest how to evaluate acoustic sources that are not explicitly considered here.

Journal of Marine Science and Engineering↗

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Cumberland County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Cumberland County, documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Cumberland County, Maine is 21 years. Most of these studies were in the early to mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-25 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Cumberland County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Cumberland County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how effective FIS data can be used in new project, and identify other data needed to

Open-File Report↗

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Kennebec County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Kennebec County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Kennebec County, Maine is 16 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Kennebec County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Kennebec County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how e

Open-File Report↗

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Somerset County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Somerset County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Somerset County, Maine is 18.1 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Somerset County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Somerset County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and ho

Open-File Report↗

Anthropocene streams and base-level controls from historic dams in the unglaciated mid-Atlantic region, USA

Recently, widespread valley-bottom damming for water power was identified as a primary control on valley sedimentation in the mid-Atlantic US during the late seventeenth to early twentieth century. The timing of damming coincided with that of accelerated upland erosion during post-European settlement land-use change. In this paper, we examine the impact of local drops in base level on incision into historic reservoir sediment as thousands of ageing dams breach. Analysis of lidar and field data indicates that historic milldam building led to local base-level rises of 2–5 m (typical milldam height) and reduced valley slopes by half. Subsequent base-level fall with dam breaching led to an approximate doubling in slope, a significant base-level forcing. Case studies in forested, rural as well as agricultural and urban areas demonstrate that a breached dam can lead to stream incision, bank erosion and increased loads of suspended sediment, even with no change in land use. After dam breaching, key predictors of stream bank erosion include number of years since dam breach, proximity to a dam and dam height. One implication of this work is that conceptual models linking channel condition and sediment yield exclusively with modern upland land use are incomplete for valleys impacted by milldams. With no equivalent in the Holocene or late Pleistocene sedimentary record, modern incised stream-channel forms in the mid-Atlantic region represent a transient response to both base-level forcing and major changes in land use beginning centuries ago. Similar channel forms might also exist in other locales where historic milling was prevalent.

Delaware, Maryland, Newe Jersey, New York, Pennsyl↗

Strategic Plan for the North American Breeding Bird Survey: 2006-2010

Executive Summary The mission of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is to provide scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales to inform biologically sound conservation and management actions. Determining population trends, relative abundance, and distributions of North American avifauna is critical for identifying conservation priorities, determining appropriate conservation actions, and evaluating those actions. The BBS program, jointly coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, provides the U.S. and Canadian Federal governments, state and provincial agencies, other conservation practitioners, and the general public with science-based avian population trend estimates and other information for regional and national species’ population assessments. Despite the demonstrated value of the BBS for furthering avian conservation across North America, its importance is often underappreciated, and it is underfunded compared with many other government-supported programs that report on status of the environment. Today, BBS resources, adjusted for inflation, are below the amount allocated in the 1970s and are still only sufficient to support two biologists. Yet the number of routes, participants, data, and data requests has quadrupled. Data and information management and delivery requirements and security concerns, non-existent in 1966, impose further demands on BBS resources. In addition, the Mexican expansion of the BBS offers new hope for a truly continental approach to avian conservation, but also brings additional challenges. Meeting the goals of this plan will take cooperation among myriad stakeholders; yet, even with collaboration, most objectives of this plan will be unattainable if BBS program support is not increased. The BBS developed this strategic plan to help set priorities and identify resources required for the program to continue to meet the evolving needs of the conservation community for information on bird population change. By setting clear goals, strategies, and measures of success, this plan provides a cohesive framework and vision for maintenance and development of the BBS. The plan identifies two major goals for the BBS, with a number of strategies and objectives to achieve these goals. Over the next 5 years, progress made in addressing each long-term goal and its associated 5-year strategies and objectives will gage the plan’s success. Specific actions, projected outcomes, and measures of success related to accomplishing these are outlined in Table 1, with a timeline in Table 2. The two main goals for the program, with a summary of the strategies to achieve them, are: Goal 1: Collect scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales. The North American Breeding Bird Survey will continue to support North American natural resource conservation through the collection of scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of continental bird populations. While doing this, the BBS will work to improve the science behind the program to better meet its mission and the changing needs of the avian conservation community. In partnership with collaborators, the BBS will address detection probability bias and habitat bias, improve analytical methods, and more fully assess and account for observer quality. Moreover, the BBS will improve the quality and breadth of avian population data through strategic increases in route density and the establishment of a Mexican BBS program. Goal 2: Ensure BBS data and analytical results are widely available and easily accessible for use by the avian conservation and management communities. At the heart of the BBS lies a four-million-record database containing more than 40 years of data on more than 600 bird species. These data are of no value if not well maintained, appropriately analyzed, and widely and easily accessible. The USGS has greatly improved data management and accessibility in recent years. Trend estimates were first made available via the Internet in the mid-1990s, followed closely by the raw data with baseline metadata and standard operating procedures. Nevertheless, numerous enhancements to data management and the usability of BBS results will greatly improve the ability of the BBS to serve avian conservation goals. The BBS needs to ensure that BBS data and results presented on the web site use the best data-management practices and statistical methods, with adequate documentation for users to understand them and any differences between different trend estimates. Moreover, the BBS needs to increase communication with BBS partners and stakeholders to ensure that it continues to meet the avian population status and trends needs of the conservation community and to encourage the development of new products. Working with collaborators, the BBS will develop tools for integrating environmental parameters like habitat change into the analyses, and for integrating BBS data with other avian survey results. In addition, the BBS will continue to improve data and database management through the incorporation of additional data and data fields, such as georeferenced stop locations and more complete metadata for the raw data and results, thus enhancing the uses that can be made of the data.

Circular↗

Fishes of Missouri River, chute, and flood plain habitats: Chapter 4 in Initial biotic survey of Lisbon Bottom, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is approximately 2,200 acres and is the first complete unit of the Refuge. Primary objectives of the Refuge are to create and restore diverse riverine aquatic habitats and reconnect the Missouri River to its flood plain where feasible. Management seeks to accomplish these objectives by encouraging natural processes of erosion, deposition, and succession to the greatest extent possible. One of the most salient aquatic features of the Lisbon Bottom Unit is a newly created 2-mile-long free-flowing chute, or side channel (Fig. 1). This chute began forming as a levee breech scour hole during the Great Flood of 1993. The chute continued to develop during the 1995 flood and finally cut through to a flowing side channel during the 1996 flood. Extensive erosion and bank sluffing continued during 1997 due to sustained high flows that occurred throughout most of the year. The chute has progressively become wider and deeper with a developing meander pattern and channel bars have begun to form. Lisbon Bottom also contains several seasonal and permanent wetlands and is subject to periodic flooding at high Missouri River stages. Eight studies have been completed or are ongoing to evaluate Missouri River fishes associated with various habitat components of Lisbon Bottom and adjacent Missouri River reaches (Table 1). Several are part of much larger investigations to evaluate fish use of flood-created habitat features, basinwide fish assessment, and endangered or candidate species concerns. At the Lisbon Bottom Unit or in the Missouri River adjacent to the unit 54 fish species were collected (Table 2). Eight of these species have either a protected status under State or Federal laws or biologists consider them to potentially qualify for protected status. The status of the following fish is listed in Table 2: pallid sturgeon x shovelnose sturgeon hybrid, paddlefish, northern pike, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, ghost shiner, western silvery minnow, plains minnow, and blue sucker. Equally important to note are fish species that were not collected. The flathead chub, currently listed as State endangered and proposed for Federal listing, were not collected in any of the studies. Common fish species, collected in all seven sampling studies, included gizzard shad, common carp, river carpsucker, and freshwater drum. Paddlefish, skipjack herring, silver carp, white sucker, redfin shiner, western silvery minnow, bullhead minnow, and black bullhead were each collected in only one of the seven studies. Pflieger (1971) developed a guild system for the fishes of Missouri based on distribution patterns and centers of abundance. Fish were assigned to one of four primary faunal groups: Ozark, Big River, Lowland, and Prairie. Two secondary groups (Ozark-prairie and Ozark-lowland) were defined for species equally abundant and distributed in two of the primary areas. Two Ozark-prairie species, shorthead redhorse and white sucker, were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Big River species are found primarily in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The environmental factors controlling fish distribution in these rivers appear to be substrate, current velocity, and turbidity. On or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit 18 Big River species were collected (Table 2). Lowland species are intolerant of siltation and high turbidity. They inhabit standing or slow-moving water with sand, fine gravel, and organic debris substrates. Two Lowland species, bullhead minnow and mosquitofish, were collected in connected scours on the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Prairie species have broader ecological tolerances than the Ozark and Lowland species. They are largely absent in high gradient streams and cool, clear waters. Prairie species make up a significant proportion of Missouri and Mississippi River fishes. Seven Prairie species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2). The last group, Wide-ranging, was defined as the species more widespread than the other faunal groups with broader environmental tolerances. Most Wide-ranging species occur at least occasionally in all sections of the state. Nineteen Wide-ranging species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2). Kubisiak (1997) found that isolated scours in the Lower Missouri River were dominated by Wide-ranging species. Connected scours also held Wideranging species but they contained Prairie species and were dominated by Big River species. Faunal group diversity and species richness were compared between isolated (Study l) and connected (Studies 4, 5, 7, and 8) scours of the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Species richness was similar with 22 species collected in isolated scours and an average of 24.8 species collected in connected scours. Isolated scour fish catches were dominated by Wide-ranging fish (59%) with 14% Big River fishes and 14% Prairie fishes. Connected scours had a larger percentage of Big River fish (32%) and fewer Wide-ranging (36%) and Prairie (13%) species than the isolated scours. In the combined studies, Wide-ranging fish dominated the connected scours. A similar comparison was made of fish from chute habitats and the Missouri River. Chute habitats include the Lisbon Bottom Chute, the chute between the right bank and island located at river mile 219, and a shallow channel running between a large sandbar complex and the channel border adjacent to Lisbon Bottom. Species richness in the chutes (35 species) was greater than that of the adjacent river (23 species). Big River species (40%) dominated the chute samples, followed by Wide-ranging at 31% Cand Prairie Cut 14%. The river samples contained equal numbers of Wide-ranging species (35%) and Big River species (35%) with 17% Prairie species. Differences in fish guild diversity and species richness may be due to numerous factors including sampling effort and sampling season. River samples were collected only in Study 3 in October; chute samples were collected in July, August, and October. Fish may have been using the chute in July and August to spawn, feed, or escape high river levels. The Lisbon Bottom Chute is a truly unique feature of the Lower Missouri River. It is the first naturally created side channel to develop since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tamed the river. The Corps eliminated 89% of the islands in the Missouri River between 1879 and 1954 (Funk and Robinson 1974). The chutes between the islands and the shore were shallower with less current than the main channel. These areas provided diversity to the Missouri River fish habitat, serving as nursery and feeding areas. The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge will continue to be studied in an effort to understand the complex role these areas play in river systems.

Missouri↗