SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Hydrologic Unit”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

USGS2025

Diverging trends in nitrate and phosphorus loads and yields across Illinois watersheds, 1997–2022

Illinois is a major contributor of nutrients to the northern Gulf of Mexico. As such, the State of Illinois initiated efforts to curb nutrient runoff over the last several decades. To evaluate progress towards these reductions, water-quality data were used to estimate incremental loads and yields of nitrate plus nitrite (NO3) and total phosphorus (TP) from 1997–2022 for 49 Illinois watersheds, defined using eight-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUC8), draining to the Mississippi River Basin. To estimate changes in NO3 and TP loads, recent loads from the period 2018 through 2022 were compared to baseline loads from 1997 through 2011. Nonpoint and point source loads, dissolved phosphorus (DP) loads, and water yields were also estimated. The sum of the incremental NO3 loads from the 49 HUC8s decreased 9% despite a 19% increase in water yield. Much of this decline occurred in HUC8s that had NO3 yields greater than 17 pounds per acre per year (lbs/acre/yr) during a 1997–2011 baseline period. The sum of all incremental HUC8 TP loads increased 25% despite a 27% reduction in point source discharge. Loads and yields were substantially larger for both NO3 and TP in the Chicago area. Outside the Chicago area, central and northern Illinois had higher NO3 yields than southern Illinois and a reverse pattern for TP where higher yields occur in southern Illinois. Nonpoint sources made up an estimated 82% and 78% of the NO3 and TP yields, respectively, across the HUC8s. In general, point source yields have mostly decreased over time, while nonpoint source yields varied depending on location and reflect the changes in the total yield.

Illinois↗

USGS2004

Watersheds for U.S Geological Survey National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) sampling sites 1996-2000

A digital representation of the watersheds of 43 sites on large river systems sampled by the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2000 was created primarily from 1:250,000 hydrologic units(HUCs) in the United States. Watershed information from Canada and Mexico was incorporated to complete the areas draining to the sampling sites from outside the United States. The sampled rivers are in one of four major river systems: the Mississippi, the Colorado, the Rio Grande, or the Columbia.

Report↗

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↗

USGS2006

Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, a Digital Representation of Lyons and Others 1997 Map and Ancillary Files

The New Hampshire Geological Survey collects data and performs research on the land, mineral, and water resources of the State, and disseminates the findings of such research to the public through maps, reports, and other publications. The Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, by John B. Lyons, Wallace A. Bothner, Robert H. Moench, and James B. Thompson, was published in paper format by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1997. The online version of this CD contains digital datasets of the State map that are intended to assist the professional geologist, land-use planners, water resource professionals, and engineers and to inform the interested layperson. In addition to the bedrock geology, the datasets include geopolitical and hydrologic information, such as political boundaries, quadrangle boundaries, hydrologic units, and water-well data. A more thorough explanation for each of these datasets may be found in the accompanying metadata files. The data are spatially referenced and may be used in a geographic information system (GIS). ArcExplorer, the Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) free GIS data viewer, is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcexplorer. ArcExplorer provides basic functions that are needed to harness the power and versatility of the spatial datasets. Additional information on the viewer and other ESRI products may be found on the ArcExplorer website. Although extensive review and revisions of the data have been performed by the USGS and the New Hampshire Geological Survey, these data represent interpretations made by professional geologists using the best available data, and are intended to provide general geologic information. Use of these data at scales larger than 1:250,000 will not provide greater accuracy. The data are not intended to replace site-specific or specific-use investigations. The U.S. Geological Survey, New Hampshire Geological Survey, and State of New Hampshire make no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the use, accuracy, or completeness of the data presented herein, or from a map printed from these data; nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The New Hampshire Geological Survey disclaims any legal responsibility or liability for interpretations made from the map, or decisions based thereon. For more information on New Hampshire Geological Survey programs please visit the State's website at http://des.nh.gov/Geology/. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT) provides access to statewide GIS (http://www.granit.unh.edu/). Questions about this CD or about other datasets should be directed to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Data Series↗

USGS2014

Geospatial database of estimates of groundwater discharge to streams in the Upper Colorado River Basin

The U.S. Geological Survey, as part of the Department of the Interior’s WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) initiative, compiled published estimates of groundwater discharge to streams in the Upper Colorado River Basin as a geospatial database. For the purpose of this report, groundwater discharge to streams is the baseflow portion of streamflow that includes contributions of groundwater from various flow paths. Reported estimates of groundwater discharge were assigned as attributes to stream reaches derived from the high-resolution National Hydrography Dataset. A total of 235 estimates of groundwater discharge to streams were compiled and included in the dataset. Feature class attributes of the geospatial database include groundwater discharge (acre-feet per year), method of estimation, citation abbreviation, defined reach, and 8-digit hydrologic unit code(s). Baseflow index (BFI) estimates of groundwater discharge were calculated using an existing streamflow characteristics dataset and were included as an attribute in the geospatial database. A comparison of the BFI estimates to the compiled estimates of groundwater discharge found that the BFI estimates were greater than the reported groundwater discharge estimates.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗

USGS2014

Hydrogeologic aspects of the Knippa Gap area in eastern Uvalde and western Medina counties, Texas

The Edwards aquifer is the primary source of potable water for the San Antonio area in south-central Texas. The Knippa Gap area is a structural low (trough) postulated to channel or restrict flow in the Edwards aquifer in eastern Uvalde and western Medina Counties, Tex. To better understand the function of the Knippa Gap, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, developed the first detailed surficial geologic map of the Knippa Gap area with data and information obtained from previous investigations and field observations. A simplified version of the detailed geologic map depicting the hydrologic units, faulting, and structural dips of the Knippa Gap area is provided in this fact sheet. The map shows that groundwater flow in the Edwards aquifer is influenced by the Balcones Fault Zone, a structurally complex area of the aquifer that contains relay ramps that have formed in extensional fault systems and allowed for deformational changes along fault blocks. Faulting in southeast Uvalde and southwest Medina Counties has produced relay-ramp structures that dip downgradient to the structural low (trough) of the Knippa Gap.

Texas↗

USGS2007

Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis-An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species

The goal of the GAP Analysis Program is to keep common species common by identifying those species and habitats that are not yet adequately represented in the existing matrix of conservation lands. The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is sponsored by the Biological Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The Ohio Aquatic GAP (OH-GAP) is a pilot project that is applying the GAP concept to aquatic-specifically, riverine-data. The mission of GAP is to provide regional assessments of the conservation status of native animal species and to facilitate the application of this information to land-management activities. OH-GAP accomplished this through * mapping aquatic habitat types, * mapping the predicted distributions of fish, crayfish, and bivalves, * documenting the presence of aquatic species in areas managed for conservation, * providing GAP results to the public, planners, managers, policy makers, and researchers, and * building cooperation with multiple organizations to apply GAP results to state and regional management activities. Gap analysis is a coarse-scale assessment of aquatic biodiversity and conservation; the goal is to identify gaps in the conservation of native aquatic species. It is not a substitute for biological field studies and monitoring programs. Gap analysis was conducted for the continuously flowing streams in Ohio. Lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and the Lake Erie islands were not included in this analysis. The streams in Ohio are in the Lake Erie and Ohio River watersheds and pass through six of the level III ecoregions defined by Omernik: the Eastern Corn Belt Plains, Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift Plains, Huron/Erie Lake Plain, Erie Drift Plains, Interior Plateau, and the Western Allegheny Plateau. To characterize the aquatic habitats available to Ohio fish, crayfish, and bivalves, a classification system needed to be developed and mapped. The process of classification includes delineation of areas of relative homogeneity and labeling these areas using categories defined by the classification system. The variables were linked to the 1:100,000-scale streams of the National Hydrography Dataset of the USGS. Through discussions with Ohio aquatic experts, OH-GAP identified eight separate enduring physical features which, when combined, form the physical habitat type: * Shreve link (a measure of stream size) * Downstream Shreve link (a measure of stream connectivity and size) * Sinuosity * Gradient * Bedrock * Stream temperature * Character of glacial drift * Glacial-drift thickness Potential distribution models were developed for 130 fish, 70 bivalve, and 17 native crayfish species. These models are based on 5,686 fish, 4,469 crayfish, and 2,899 freshwater bivalve (mussels and clams) sampling locations, the variables describing the physical habitat types, and variables indicating the major drainage basins and Omernik's Level III ecoregion. All potential species distributions are displayed and analyzed at the 14-digit hydrologic unit (14-HUs), or subwatershed, level. Mainland Ohio contains 1,749 14-HUs. All statistics and conclusions, as well as spatial data, are discussed and presented in terms of these units. The Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis Project compiled a map of public and private conservation lands and OH-GAP classified the lands into four status categories (status 1 through status 4) by the degree of protection offered based on management practices. A status of 1 denotes the highest, most permanent level of maintenance, and status 4 represents the lowest level of biodiversity management, or unknown status. The results of this mapping show that only about 3.7 percent of the state's land (4.3 percent if lakes and reservoirs are also included) is protected for conservation, either publicly or privately. Of this total, state agencies control about 52 percent, and Federal agencies control about 29 percent. Conservation areas that presently protect

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Description of Existing Data for Integrated Landscape Monitoring in the Puget Sound Basin, Washington

This report summarizes existing geospatial data and monitoring programs for the Puget Sound Basin in northwestern Washington. This information was assembled as a preliminary data-development task for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Puget Sound Integrated Landscape Monitoring (PSILM) pilot project. The PSILM project seeks to support natural resource decision-making by developing a 'whole system' approach that links ecological processes at the landscape level to the local level (Benjamin and others, 2008). Part of this effort will include building the capacity to provide cumulative information about impacts that cross jurisdictional and regulatory boundaries, such as cumulative effects of land-cover change and shoreline modification, or region-wide responses to climate change. The PSILM project study area is defined as the 23 HUC-8 (hydrologic unit code) catchments that comprise the watersheds that drain into Puget Sound and their near-shore environments. The study area includes 13 counties and more than four million people. One goal of the PSILM geospatial database is to integrate spatial data collected at multiple scales across the Puget Sound Basin marine and terrestrial landscape. The PSILM work plan specifies an iterative process that alternates between tasks associated with data development and tasks associated with research or strategy development. For example, an initial work-plan goal was to delineate the study area boundary. Geospatial data required to address this task included data from ecological regions, watersheds, jurisdictions, and other boundaries. This assemblage of data provided the basis for identifying larger research issues and delineating the study-area boundary based on these research needs. Once the study-area boundary was agreed upon, the next iteration between data development and research activities was guided by questions about data availability, data extent, data abundance, and data types. This report is not intended as an exhaustive compilation of all available geospatial data, rather, it is a collection of information about geospatial data that can be used to help answer the suite of questions posed after the study-area boundary was defined. This information will also be useful to the PSILM team for future project tasks, such as assessing monitoring gaps, exploring monitoring-design strategies, identifying and deriving landscape indicators and metrics, and visual geographic communication. The two main geospatial data types referenced in this report - base-reference layers and monitoring data - originated from numerous and varied sources. In addition to collecting information and metadata about the base-reference layers, the data also were collected for project needs, such as developing maps for visual communication among team members and with outside groups. In contrast, only information about the data was typically required for the monitoring data. The information on base-reference layers and monitoring data included in this report is only as detailed as what was readily available from the sources themselves. Although this report may appear to lack consistency between data records, the varying degree of details contained in this report are merely a reflection of varying source detail. This compilation is just a beginning. All data listed also are being catalogued in spreadsheets and knowledge-management systems. Our efforts are continual as we develop a geospatial catalog for the PSILM pilot project.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

Web-based flood database for Colorado, water years 1867 through 2011

In order to provide a centralized repository of flood information for the State of Colorado, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation, created a Web-based geodatabase for flood information from water years 1867 through 2011 and data for paleofloods occurring in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. The geodatabase was created using the Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcGIS JavaScript Application Programing Interface 3.2. The database can be accessed at http://cwscpublic2.cr.usgs.gov/projects/coflood/COFloodMap.html. Data on 6,767 flood events at 1,597 individual sites throughout Colorado were compiled to generate the flood database. The data sources of flood information are indirect discharge measurements that were stored in U.S. Geological Survey offices (water years 1867–2011), flood data from indirect discharge measurements referenced in U.S. Geological Survey reports (water years 1884–2011), paleoflood studies from six peer-reviewed journal articles (data on events occurring in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years), and the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System peak-discharge database (water years 1883–2010). A number of tests were performed on the flood database to ensure the quality of the data. The Web interface was programmed using the Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcGIS JavaScript Application Programing Interface 3.2, which allows for display, query, georeference, and export of the data in the flood database. The data fields in the flood database used to search and filter the database include hydrologic unit code, U.S. Geological Survey station number, site name, county, drainage area, elevation, data source, date of flood, peak discharge, and field method used to determine discharge. Additional data fields can be viewed and exported, but the data fields described above are the only ones that can be used for queries.

Colorado↗

USGS2015

GIS-Based Identification of Areas with Mineral Resource Potential for Six Selected Deposit Groups, Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Planning Area, Alaska

This study, covering the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Yukon Planning Area (CYPA), Alaska, was prepared to aid BLM mineral resource management planning. Estimated mineral resource potential and certainty are mapped for six selected mineral deposit groups: (1) rare earth element (REE) deposits associated with peralkaline to carbonatitic intrusive igneous rocks, (2) placer and paleoplacer gold, (3) platinum group element (PGE) deposits associated with mafic and ultramafic intrusive igneous rocks, (4) carbonate-hosted copper deposits, (5) sandstone uranium deposits, and (6) tin-tungsten-molybdenum-fluorspar deposits associated with specialized granites. These six deposit groups include most of the strategic and critical elements of greatest interest in current exploration. This study has used a data-driven, geographic information system (GIS)-based method for evaluating the mineral resource potential across the large region of the CYPA. This method systematically and simultaneously analyzes geoscience data from multiple geospatially referenced datasets and uses individual subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic unit codes or HUCs) as the spatial unit of classification. The final map output indicates an estimated potential (high, medium, low) for a given mineral deposit group and indicates the certainty (high, medium, low) of that estimate for any given subwatershed (HUC). Accompanying tables describe the data layers used in each analysis, the values assigned for specific analysis parameters, and the relative weighting of each data layer that contributes to the estimated potential and certainty determinations. Core datasets used include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB2), the Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys Web-based geochemical database, data from an anticipated USGS geologic map of Alaska, and the USGS Alaska Resource Data File. Map plates accompanying this report illustrate the mineral prospectivity for the six deposit groups across the CYPA and estimates of mineral resource potential. There are numerous areas, some of them large, rated with high potential for one or more of the selected deposit groups within the CYPA.

Alaska↗

USGS2020

Quality assurance/quality control procedure for New Jersey’s water-use data for the New Jersey Water Transfer Data System (NJWaTr)

This report is an instructional reference document that describes methods developed and used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) New Jersey Water Science Center (NJWSC) to assure the quality and completeness of water-use data as provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Bureau of Water Allocation. These data are owned wholly by the State of New Jersey. The role of the USGS NJWSC is to assure the quality of these data by compiling, reviewing, and checking the datasets before uploading them into the New Jersey Water Transfer Data System (NJWaTr) database on an annual basis. The complete uploaded version of the NJWaTr database serves as the repository for New Jersey’s approved and published water-use data. The State of New Jersey maintains a public-facing version of the NJWaTr database (available online at https://www.nj.gov/dep/njgs/geodata/dgs10-3.htm ) that contains monthly water-use data at the municipality and 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code subwatershed level. The protected version of the NJWaTr database that contains monthly site-specific water-use data is available from the NJDEP upon request.

New Jersey↗

USGS1978

Progress toward a ground-water-quality monitoring network for Idaho

A ground-water-quality monitoring network is being designed for Idaho. The primary objectives of the network are to (1) determine the present quality of the State's ground water, (2) provide continual monitoring of groundwater quality for water-management purposes, and (3) serve as a warning system of undesirable changes in ground-water quality. Data are compiled for geohydrologic conditions, groundwater quality, cultural elements, and pollution sources. A "Hydrologic Unit Priority Index" is calculated from these data to select priority areas for monitoring purposes. New ground-water-quality data were collected where existing data were lacking and at some sites that were previously sampled. Old and new data at common sites correlated well, indicating that the water quality has not changed significantly. Most ground water in Idaho is of good quality for common uses; however, water quality may pose problems in local areas. The problems result from both natural and human causes. The potential for pollution of the aquifers is expected to be greatest in areas of greatest development. In Idaho, population centers and industries tend to be in areas of privately owned irrigated and arable · land. Therefore, these areas are of primary concern for monitoring ground-water quality. Other areas requiring monitoring include those with second-home development, mining and its related processes, and radioactive-waste disposal.

Idaho↗

USGS1982

Ground-water quality and data on wells and springs in Pennsylvania; Volume III, Delaware River basin

Volume III presents ground-water quality and physical data on about 1,250 wells and springs in the Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania. Locations are shown on site-location maps derived from the hydrologic unit map. Codes showing the geologic age and aquifer are provided.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS1983

Hydrology of area 2, Eastern Coal Province, Pennsylvania and New York

Open-File Report↗

USGS1983

Hydrology of Area 1, eastern coal province, Pennsylvania [West Branch Susquehanna River, Sinnemahoning Creek, Upper Juniata River, Clearfield Creek]

Provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 recognized a nationwide need for hydrologic information in mined and potentially mined areas. This report is designed to be useful to mine owners, operators, regulatory authorities, citizens groups, and others by presenting information on existing hydrologic conditions and by identifying additional sources of hydrologic information. General hydrologic information is presented in a brief text accompanied by a map, chart, graph, or other illustration for each of a series of water resources-related topics. The summation of the topical discussions provides a description of the hydrology of the area. The Eastern Coal Province has been divided into 24 hydrologic study areas which are shown on the cover of this report. The divisions are based on hydrologic factors, location, and size. Hydrologic units (surface drainage basins) or parts of units are combined to form each study area. Area 1 covers 7,400 square miles of the Eastern Coal Province in part or all of 18 counties in west-central Pennsylvania. The major streams in the area are the West Branch Susquehanna and Juniata Rivers. Area 1 counties produced more than 20,000,000 tons of coal during 1979. About 66,000 acres of disturbed coal land in Area 1 counties are in need of reclamation. Streamflow data have been collected at 146 locations in the area, and water-quality data have been collected at 123 locations. Interpretations of water quality in this report are generally based on a series of four water-quality samples collected at each of 113 locations during the 1979-80 water years. Water-quality data collected at these sites included: specific conductance; dissolved solids; pH; acidity; alkalinty; total and dissolved iron; total and dissolved manganese; sulfate; and bed-material iron, manganese, coal, and organic carbon. Most sites had benthic invertebrate populations sampled and analyses of bed-material constituents. A smaller set of sites was sampled for common constituents and minor elements. Streams in Clearfield and Cambria Counties, the two leading coal producers in the area, had median specific conductances and dissolved-solids concentrations three to five times greater than those from other area counties. Clearfield County streams had the lowest median stream pH in the area. Most streams sampled in the area had acidity in excess of alkalinity. Streams in the three major coal producing counties in the area had median total-iron concentrations two to three times higher than those for other area counties, and the same general pattern was found for total manganese. The median sulfate concentration of a county's streams showed a close positive correlation with the amount of coal mined in the county. Iron and coal concentrations in bed material were higher in coal-producing counties, but manganese concentrations in bed material were not higher. Twenty-eight streams did not have a benthic biological community as defined by the Office of Surface Mining. Three-fourths of the sites with no biological community had levels of pH, acidity, iron, manganese, and sulfate indicative of acid mine drainage. Statistics on low flow, mean flow, peak flow, and flow-duration can be computed from gaging station records for gaged streams. The same statistics can be estimated for ungaged streams through the use of regression or graphical techniques. This information may be useful in preparing and evaluating mine-permit applications. Aquifers in the area receive most recharge from precipitation on outcrop areas. Highest ground-water levels generally occur in spring, decline during the summer, and begin to rise again during the fall. Water levels in valleys generally show less fluctuation than on hills. Median well yields in the area range from 5 to 50 gallons per minute. Ground-water supplies are obtained from more than 40 formations. Ground-water quality is generally suitable for most uses.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS1984

Water-level hydrographs for observation wells in Virginia, 1982

Water-well data for 1982 are presented from 147 observation wells in Virginia. Historical data from two wells are also included. A description of each observation well is provided that gives the well location, site identification number, hydrologic unit, owner, aquifer, well characteristics, general remarks, period of record, and extreme measurements for the period of record. A hydrograph for the period of record is presented for each well. The method and frequency of water-level measurements at each well are presented in tabular format. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗

USGS1984

Water-use computer programs for Florida

Using U.S. Geological Survey computer programs L149-L153, this report shows how to process water-use data for the functional water-use categories: public supply, rural supply, industrial self-supplied, irrigation, and thermo-electric power generation. The programs are used to selectively retrieve entries and list them in a format suitable for publication. Instructions are given for coding cards to produce tables of water-use data for each of the functional use categories. These cards contain entries that identify a particular water-use data-collection site in Florida. Entries on the cards include location information such as county code, water management district code, hydrologic unit code, and, where applicable, a site name and number. Annual and monthly pumpage is included. These entries are shown with several different headings; for example, surface water or ground water, freshwater or saline pumpages, or consumptive use. All the programs use a similar approach; however, the actual programs differ with each functional water-use category and are discussed separately. Data prepared for these programs can also be processed by the National Water-Use Data System. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗

USGS1986

Water-use information for California

This pamphlet reports on the availability of water use information to and for the state of California, through the development of the State Water-Use Data System (SWUDS). SWUDS is currently organized into 12 water use categories: Agricultural non-irrigation; Commercial; Domestic; Industrial; Irrigation; Mining; Power generation--fossil fuel, geothermal, hydroelectric , nuclear; Sewage treatment; and Water supply. The information needs of this system include type of water use (by category); name of water user; location of water use (latitude/longitude, county, and hydrologic unit--drainage basin); sources of water supply and return (fresh, saline, or reclaimed surface or groundwater); volume of water withdrawn, delivered, consumed, released, and returned; and period of water use (month, year). (Lantz-PTT)

Open-File Report↗