USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “INformation”

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 1,153 records · Page 64Linked to original sources
USGS2014

Detailed cross sections of the Eocene Green River Formation along the north and east margins of the Piceance Basin, western Colorado, using measured sections and drill hole information

This report presents two detailed cross sections of the Eocene Green River Formation in the Piceance Basin, northwestern Colorado, constructed from eight detailed measured sections, fourteen core holes, and two rotary holes. The Eocene Green River Formation in the Piceance Basin contains the world’s largest known oil shale deposit with more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil in place. It was deposited in Lake Uinta, a long-lived saline lake that once covered much of the Piceance Basin and the Uinta Basin to the west. The cross sections extend across the northern and eastern margins of the Piceance Basin and are intended to aid in correlating between surface sections and the subsurface in the basin.

Colorado↗
USGS2014

Assessment of the spatial extent and height of flooding in Lake Champlain during May 2011, using satellite remote sensing and ground-based information

Landsat 5 and moderate resolution imaging spectro-radiometer satellite imagery were used to map the area of inundation of Lake Champlain, which forms part of the border between New York and Vermont, during May 2011. During this month, the lake’s water levels were record high values not observed in the previous 150 years. Lake inundation area determined from the satellite imagery is correlated with lake stage measured at three U.S. Geological Survey lake level gages to provide estimates of lake area at different lake levels (stage/area rating) and also compared with the levels of the high-water marks (HWMs) located on the Vermont side of the lake. The rating developed from the imagery shows a somewhat different relation than a similar stage/area rating developed from a medium-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) of the region. According to the rating derived from the imagery, the lake surface area during the peak lake level increased by about 17 percent above the average or “normal” lake level. By using a comparable rating developed from the DEM, the increase above average is estimated to be about 12 percent. The northern part of the lake (north of Burlington) showed the largest amount of flooding. Based on intersecting the inundation maps with the medium-resolution DEM, lake levels were not uniform around the lake. This is also evident from the lake level gage measurements and HWMs. The gage data indicate differences up to 0.5 feet between the northern and southern end of the lake. Additionally, the gage data show day-to-day and intradaily variation of the same range (0.5 foot). The high-water mark observations show differences up to 2 feet around the lake, with the highest level generally along the south- and west-facing shorelines. The data suggest that during most of May 2011, water levels were slightly higher and less variable in the northern part of the lake. These phenomena may be caused by wind effects as well as proximity to major river inputs to the lake. The inundation areas generated from the imagery generally coincide with flood mapping as estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and shown on its digital flood insurance rate maps. Where areas in the flood inundation map derived from the imagery and the FEMA estimated flooded areas differ substantially, this difference may be due to differences between the flood magnitude at the time of the image and the assumed flood condition used for the FEMA modeling and mapping, wind/storage effects not accounted for by the FEMA modeling, and the resolution of the image compared to the DEM used in the FEMA mapping.

Lake Champlain↗
USGS2025

Climate change impacts on plant communities in the sagebrush region—A science synthesis to inform Bureau of Land Management resource management

This report synthesizes current (2024) science-based knowledge related to the impacts of climate change on big sagebrush vegetation in Western North America. This effort was conducted through the U.S. Geological Survey working with the Bureau of Land Management as part of multiple science syntheses to aid management agencies developing environmental impacts assessments in response to human-related or caused events. This report reviews the potential impacts climate change may have on sagebrush vegetation and related management decisions. The body of the synthesis introduces the diverse impacts of climate change across the region by first focusing directly on what climate change may entail in terms of altered temperature and precipitation patterns. The report then discusses how these changes could likely affect individual plant species based on experimental results and scale the impacts to species distributions and community composition. The synthesis section ends by surveying efforts to model potential future changes in habitat. The report goes on to link the synthesis conclusions to individual land uses or land management decisions, such as forage resources, restoration or fuel treatment. Finally, the report provides a section that discusses the pros and cons of available datasets that model the potential future of vegetation in the sagebrush region.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗
USGS1959

Lithologic log and drilling information for the Marble exploration hole 3, U15 area, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada

The Marble exploration hole 3 is in the northern part of the Tippipah Spring NE 7-1/2 minute quadrangle at the north end of Yucca Valley (fig.1). The collar elevation of the hole is about 5,316 feet and has the approximate Nevada State coordinates of N. 903,093 and E. 674,870. The hole was drilled to determine the physical and chemical properties of the marble within a radius of 200 feet of a point 950 feet below the surface. The exploration hole is 978 feet deep and was drilled from June 12 to July 8, 1959, by Minerals Engineering Co. of Grand Junction, Colorado, using conventional NX coring equiipment and a Portadrill 2,500 drill rig. Water-base bentonitic mud was used as the drilling fluid in the upper part of the hole. Clear water was used after circulation became unrestorable below 200 feet. The hole was cased from surface to 20 feet. The drilling rate during coring ranged from 2.0 to 19.3 minutes per foot and averaged 4.6 minutes per foot (table 1). The core recovered was excellent in quality and quantity. The average core recovery is 92.7 percent (table 2).

Nevada↗
USGS2024

Semi-automated methods to develop a unified geographic information system dataset

Geospatial data describing the topography, natural features, human-built features, and land uses of a particular area or region can come from independent data providers and, therefore, vary in format, data encoding, and geographic coverage. Because of the complexity of the processes and procedures required for unifying these heterogeneous data into a dataset with consistent format, encoding, and coverage, fully automated procedures for data unification do not exist. However, a combination of manual and automated procedures—semi-automated methods—can substantially reduce the time required for data unification while improving accuracy. This report presents three semi-automated data-unification methods in detail. Although these methods are not new in principle, their details are the result of original development work, and they serve as examples that can be reused, adapted, or generalized to provide head starts to future data-unification projects. The format of this report can be used and refined to encourage the publication of future reports and more widespread sharing of semi-automated methods.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2009

Estimating Prediction Uncertainty from Geographical Information System Raster Processing: A User's Manual for the Raster Error Propagation Tool (REPTool)

The U.S. Geological Survey Raster Error Propagation Tool (REPTool) is a custom tool for use with the Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Desktop application to estimate error propagation and prediction uncertainty in raster processing operations and geospatial modeling. REPTool is designed to introduce concepts of error and uncertainty in geospatial data and modeling and provide users of ArcGIS Desktop a geoprocessing tool and methodology to consider how error affects geospatial model output. Similar to other geoprocessing tools available in ArcGIS Desktop, REPTool can be run from a dialog window, from the ArcMap command line, or from a Python script. REPTool consists of public-domain, Python-based packages that implement Latin Hypercube Sampling within a probabilistic framework to track error propagation in geospatial models and quantitatively estimate the uncertainty of the model output. Users may specify error for each input raster or model coefficient represented in the geospatial model. The error for the input rasters may be specified as either spatially invariant or spatially variable across the spatial domain. Users may specify model output as a distribution of uncertainty for each raster cell. REPTool uses the Relative Variance Contribution method to quantify the relative error contribution from the two primary components in the geospatial model - errors in the model input data and coefficients of the model variables. REPTool is appropriate for many types of geospatial processing operations, modeling applications, and related research questions, including applications that consider spatially invariant or spatially variable error in geospatial data.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2002

Standards for the Analysis and Processing of Surface-Water Data and Information Using Electronic Methods

Surface-water computation methods and procedures are described in this report to provide standards from which a completely automated electronic processing system can be developed. To the greatest extent possible, the traditional U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) methodology and standards for streamflow data collection and analysis have been incorporated into these standards. Although USGS methodology and standards are the basis for this report, the report is applicable to other organizations doing similar work. The proposed electronic processing system allows field measurement data, including data stored on automatic field recording devices and data recorded by the field hydrographer (a person who collects streamflow and other surface-water data) in electronic field notebooks, to be input easily and automatically. A user of the electronic processing system easily can monitor the incoming data and verify and edit the data, if necessary. Input of the computational procedures, rating curves, shift requirements, and other special methods are interactive processes between the user and the electronic processing system, with much of this processing being automatic. Special computation procedures are provided for complex stations such as velocity-index, slope, control structures, and unsteady-flow models, such as the Branch-Network Dynamic Flow Model (BRANCH). Navigation paths are designed to lead the user through the computational steps for each type of gaging station (stage-only, stagedischarge, velocity-index, slope, rate-of-change in stage, reservoir, tide, structure, and hydraulic model stations). The proposed electronic processing system emphasizes the use of interactive graphics to provide good visual tools for unit values editing, rating curve and shift analysis, hydrograph comparisons, data-estimation procedures, data review, and other needs. Documentation, review, finalization, and publication of records are provided for with the electronic processing system, as well as archiving, quality assurance, and quality control.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗