Kyle W. Blasch

Compact streamgages requiring minimal infrastructure and equipped with submersible pressure transducers (PTs) are increasingly used to monitor small streams, yet disparate implementations obscure their accuracy under real‐world conditions. This study isolated instrumentation‐derived uncertainty in stage monitoring by co‐locating various combinations of commercial vented and unvented PTs with seven U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reference streamgages on small streams. Multi‐year PT stage records from compact streamgages, collected and corrected following USGS protocols, were compared to concurrent reference observations. Vented PTs demonstrated an average measurement uncertainty of ±0.005 m and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) of ±0.2%. Unvented PTs exhibited higher uncertainty, averaging ±0.009 m and ±0.4% MAPE. Although both sensor types had stage errors up to ±0.3 m, 95% of vented PT and unvented PT observations were within 0.01 and 0.02 m of reference stage, respectively. Analysis of additional unvented PTs revealed stage errors of up to ±1.2% when using barometric sensors within 15 km of the in‐water sensor. Propagation of stage error to discharge using reference rating models resulted in cumulative discharge MAPEs of ±4.5% for vented and ±5.5% for unvented PTs. These findings highlight PTs as practical alternatives to reference instrumentation when deployed with standardized procedures, potentially expanding access to reliable streamflow data.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has long recognized the strategic importance and value of well-managed data assets as an integral component of scientific integrity and foundational to the advancement of scientific research, decision making, and public safety. The USGS investment in the science lifecycle, including collection of unbiased data assets, interpretation, peer review, interpretive publications, and data release, ultimately contributes to the transparency and availability of science. Foundational Government directives and laws, such as the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–435, 132 Stat. 5529) as well as Executive Order 13642, “Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information,” provide a framework for addressing strategic data management. The USGS Data Strategy builds on that framework by outlining high-level goals and objectives that serve as a long-term, decadal guide toward achieving a broad, data-focused vision.Benefits of the USGS Data Strategy are many. The USGS will...

Extensive streamflow data sources exist beyond the largest streamflow data provider in the United States, the U.S. Geological Survey. We developed and distributed a survey to about 300 individuals and organizations that collect streamflow data across the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, Washington). We received 100 responses with 56% of those sufficiently complete to include in the analysis. From these responses, there are about 2000 streamflow monitoring locations in the region beyond the USGS monitoring network. The duration of record for gages is related to the size of the streamflow gaging network, with small and large networks generally operating monitoring locations for less than 5 years and more than 10 years, respectively. Quality assurance and quality control are variable across organizations, with 41% of respondents having at least two review steps and 13% that audit their data for long‐term consistency. Results of this survey begin to establish the differing capabilities of large and small stream gaging networks and highlight how supporting the overall quality streamflow data collection and management within the water resources community will improve our ability to harmonize these datasets in the future.

Streamflow data are critical for monitoring and managing water resources, yet there are significant spatial gaps in our federal monitoring networks with biases toward large perennial rivers. In some cases, streamflow monitoring exists in these spatial gaps, but information about these monitoring locations is challenging to obtain. Here, we present a streamflow catalog for the United States Pacific Northwest that includes current and historical streamflow monitoring location information obtained from 32 organizations (other than the U.S. Geological Survey), which includes 2661 continuous streamflow gaging locations (22% are currently active) and 30,557 discrete streamflow measurements. A stakeholder advisory board with representatives from organizations that operate streamflow monitoring networks identified metadata requirements and provided feedback on the Streamflow Data Catalog user interface. Engagement with the water resources community through this effort highlighted challenges that water professionals face in collecting and managing streamflow data so that data are findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). Over 60% of the streamflow monitoring locations in the Streamflow Data Catalog are not available online and are thus not findable through web search engines. Providing organizations technical assistance with standard measurement procedures, metadata collection, and web accessibility could substantially increase the availability and utility of streamflow information to water resources communities.

This dataset is the largest cross-organizational set of streamflow monitoring metadata, with information about over 33,000 non-USGS monitoring locations. This catalog includes streamflow monitoring metadata across 32 organizations, including 2,661 continuous gaging locations, 586 of which are active, which is more than twice the number of USGS gages in the region (723, in 2021), and over 30,500 discrete measurements. This catalog was developed through extensive engagement with individuals in various water management roles across the region.

Various organizations collect streamflow data across the United States, the largest of which is the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Beyond the USGS there are other public agencies, tribes, nongovernmental and private organizations that also collect streamflow data. This data is highly variable and distributed across a range of data platforms and repositories. This survey was developed and deployed to obtain information about the organizations that maintain streamflow gaging networks. It was distributed to over 300 contacts, and had 100 respondents, with 57 unique and sufficiently complete responses.

Stream permanence classifications (i.e., perennial, intermittent, ephemeral) are a primary consideration to determine stream regulatory status in the United States (U.S.) and are an important indicator of environmental conditions and biodiversity. However, at present, no models or products adequately describe surface water presence for regulatory determinations. We modified the Thornthwaite monthly water balance model (MWBM) with a flow threshold parameter to estimate flow permanence and evaluated the model’s accuracy and precision for more than 1.3 million headwater stream reaches in the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW). Stream reaches were assigned to one of eight calibration groups by unsupervised classification based on sensitivity to MWBM parameters. Suitable MWBM parameter sets were identified by comparing modeled stream permanence estimates to surface water presence observations (SWPO). Parameter sets with accuracies > 65% were considered suitable. The MWBM estimated stream permanence with high precision at 40% of reaches, with poor precision at 20% of reaches, and no suitable parameter sets were identified for 40% of reaches. Results highlight the need for increased SWPO collection to improve calibration and assessment of stream permanence models. Additionally, implementation of the MWBM to estimate surface water presence indicates potential for process-based models to predict stream permanence with future development.

First posted January 14, 2022 Director, U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20192 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort...

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream permanence classifications (SPC; perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) are widely used for data visualization and applied science, and have implications for resource policy and management. NHD SPC were assigned using a combination of topographic field surveys and interviews with local residents. However, previous studies indicate that non‐NHD, in situ streamflow observations (NNO) frequently disagree with NHD SPC. We hypothesized that differences in annual climate conditions between map creation years and the years NNO were collected contributed to disagreement between NNO and NHD SPC. We compared NHD SPC to 10,055 NNO (classified as “wet” or “dry”) collected in the Pacific Northwest between 1977 and 2015. Annual climate conditions were described with the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). Stream order was added as a covariate to account for different effects along the stream network. NHD SPC agreed with 80.5% of NNO. “Dry” NNO were five times more likely to disagree with NHD than “wet” NNO (p < 0.0001). Disagreement was greatest on first‐order streams. When NHD SPC were collected during a wetter period than NNO the probability of disagreement increased by a factor of 1.17 (p < 0.0001) per unit difference in PDSI. The influence of climate on disagreements between NNO and NHD SPC provides support for the continued development of dynamic models representing SPC as opposed to static NHD classifications.