Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Special Scientific Report - Fisheries”

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 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources
USGS2007

Benthic habitats and offshore geological resources of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Hawai‘i

Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park (KAHO) is one of three National Park lands located along the western coast of the Island of Hawai‘i and the only one to include submerged lands and marine resources within its official boundaries. The park was established in 1978 and is 1,160 acres in size, including 596 acres of marine area. The submerged lands are currently managed by the State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources (DLNR-DAR). Marine resources located within KAHO include coral reef and habitat for many marine animals, including the green sea turtle and a variety of fish and invertebrates. In addition, many archeological, cultural, and recreational resources are located within the marine realm of the park. Potential threats and stressors to the modern marine environment include ground-water and surface-water contamination, invasive plants and algae, fishing pressure and use of monofilament gill nets (which can ensnare marine life or become tangled on reefs and be left behind as fishing debris), and visitor use impacts, such as scuba diving and snorkeling. Illegal dumping, oil releases, boat groundings, and other physical damage to reef resources are potential threats from users of the nearby harbor. Special issues of concern for the park include establishing baseline conditions of the offshore resources before the development of adjacent coastal lands. Until this study, only a general knowledge of the distribution of benthic habitats and the characteristics of the offshore region of Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park was available. In 2003, a collaborative project between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Geology Program and the National Park Service (NPS) was initiated to develop detailed benthic-habitat classification maps for the marine lands within and adjacent to the park. The intent of this project is to provide baseline maps and a Geographic Information System (GIS) database and description of the biological and geological resources of these marine lands in order to facilitate the management, interpretation, and understanding of park resources. A benthic-habitat classification map was created for the park using existing color aerial photography, Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey (SHOALS) bathymetric data, georeferenced underwater video, and still photography. Individual habitat polygons were classified using five basic attributes: (1) major structure or substrate, (2) dominant structure, (3) major biologic cover on the substrate, (4) percentage of major biological cover, and (5) geographic zone. Additional information regarding geology, morphology, and coral species were also noted. Marine resources located within KAHO include coral reef and habitat for many marine animals, including the green sea turtle and a variety of fish and invertebrates. In addition, many archeological, cultural, and recreational resources are located within the marine realm of the park. Potential threats and stressors to the modern marine environment include ground-water and surface-water contamination, invasive plants and algae, fishing pressure and use of monofilament gill nets (which can ensnare marine life or become tangled on reefs and be left behind as fishing debris), and visitor use impacts, such as scuba diving and snorkeling. Illegal dumping, oil releases, boat groundings, and other physical damage to reef resources are potential threats from users of the nearby harbor. Special issues of concern for the park include establishing baseline conditions of the offshore resources before the development of adjacent coastal lands. Until this study, only a general knowledge of the distribution of benthic habitats and the characteristics of the offshore region of Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park was available. In 2003, a collaborative project between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Geology Program and the National Park Service (NPS) was initiated to develop detailed benthic-habitat classification maps for the marine lands within and adjacent to the park. The intent of this project is to provide baseline maps and a Geographic Information System (GIS) database and description of the biological and geological resources of these marine lands in order to facilitate the management, interpretation, and understanding of park resources. A benthic-habitat classification map was created for the park using existing color aerial photography, Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey (SHOALS) bathymetric data, georeferenced underwater video, and still photography. Individual habitat polygons were classified using five basic attributes: (1) major structure or substrate, (2) dominant structure, (3) major biologic cover on the substrate, (4) percentage of major biological cover, and (5) geographic zone. Additional information regarding geology, morphology, and coral species were also noted.

Hawai'i↗
USGS1902

The Geology and Petrography of Crater Lake National Park

Twenty years ago Crater Lake was unknown to the general public, but since then a knowledge of its remarkable features has been spread abroad through the press, and Congress recognized its worth as an educational feature and made it a national park by the act approved May 22, 1902. As defined in the bill, the park is 'bounded north by the parallel forty-three degrees four minutes north latitude, south by forty-two degrees forty-eight minutes north latitude, east by the meridian one hundred and twenty-two degrees west longitude, and west by the meridian one hundred and twenty-two degrees sixteen minutes west longitude, having an area of two hundred and forty-nine square miles'. The Ashland sheet of United States Geological Survey, on the scale of 4 miles to 1 inch, includes the area lying between meridians 122 deg and 123 deg and parallels 42 deg and 43 deg. This map includes the region between Ashland and Crater Lake. On account of the great scientific interest of Crater Lake a special map, known as the Crater Lake special sheet, was prepared on the scale of 1 mile to an inch, including the country immediately adjacent to Crater Lake, between meridians 122 deg and 122 deg 15' and parallels 42 deg 50' and 43 deg 4'. From these two maps the accompanying map of the Crater Lake National Park (Pl. 1) has been prepared. The two papers published here refer practically to the whole region included in the National Park. The one, Part I, treats primarily of the geology, the development of the great volcano, Mount Mazama, and its collapse, which gave birth to Crater Lake; the other, Part II, deals with the petrography, and gives a special description of the various rocks occurring in the park. Origin of the name Mount Mazama - A great impetus to the spread of information concerning Crater Lake was given by the Mazamas of Portland, Oreg., who held a meeting at the lake in August, 1896, which attracted many visitors. The principal features in the history of the lake had previously been made out, and the Mazamas, recognizing the fact that the great peak which was nearly destroyed in preparing the pit for the lake had no name, gave it the name of their own society. Upon the rim of the lake are a number of small peaks, each having its own designation. The term Mount Mazama refers to the whole rim encircling the lake. It is but a mere remnant of the once lofty peak, the real Mount Mazama, which rose far into the region of eternal snow. To get a basis for reconstructing the original Mount Mazama it is necessary to study in detail the structure and composition of its foundation, now so attractively displayed in the encircling cliffs of Crater Lake.

Oregon↗
USGS2014

Making decisions in complex landscapes: Headwater stream management across multiple federal agencies

Headwater stream ecosystems are vulnerable to numerous threats associated with climate and land use change. In the northeastern US, many headwater stream species (e.g., brook trout and stream salamanders) are of special conservation concern and may be vulnerable to climate change influences, such as changes in stream temperature and streamflow. Federal land management agencies (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense) are required to adopt policies that respond to climate change and may have longer-term institutional support to enforce such policies compared to state, local, non-governmental, or private land managers. However, federal agencies largely make management decisions in regards to headwater stream ecosystems independently. This fragmentation of management resources and responsibilities across the landscape may significantly impede the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation actions, and higher degrees of collaboration may be required to achieve conservation goals. This project seeks to provide an example of cooperative landscape decision-making to address the conservation of headwater stream ecosystems. We identified shared and contrasting objectives of each federal agency and potential collaboration opportunities that may increase efficient and effective management of headwater stream ecosystems in two northeastern US watersheds. These workshops provided useful insights into the adaptive capacity of federal institutions to address threats to headwater stream ecosystems. Our ultimate goal is to provide a decision-making framework and analysis that addresses large-scale conservation threats across multiple stakeholders, as a demonstration of cooperative landscape conservation for aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, we aim to provide new scientific knowledge and a regional perspective to resource managers to help inform local management decisions.

Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia↗
USGS1962

Portrayal of drainage and vegetation on topographic maps

Accurate measurements of drainage networks are necessary for studies in many scientific disciplines, especially hydrology. To this end, topographic maps must show accurate classification as well as a consistent pattern of the stream network. A recent study in Georgia has developed two photo-interpretive keys which permit accurate drainage classification during the normal stereo-compilation procedures in map-making. The study was made in the Tired Creek basin in the Coastal Plain, and in the Yellow River basin in the Piedmont Province. In the Tired Creek basin, the perennial stream channels were associated with blackgum swamps which showed as a characteristic pattern on the aerial photographs of the area. Although the areas were classed as evergreen forest on specially-compiled vegetation maps without field checking, the classification was relatively consistent, indicating that the perennial channels could be identified accurately within the basin. In the Yellow River basin origins of perennial flow were found in valleys having concave-upward profiles. Valleys with convex-upward profiles remained ephemeral up to their juncture with a larger stream. Field checks indicated better than 80 percent accuracy in delineating these points of origin of perennial flow through stereoscopic viewing of the aerial photographs of the area. Vegetative difference above and below the origins of perennial flow were to subtle to be readily discerned on the photographs. Errors in classifying vegetation on special maps were attributed mainly to inexperience and to faulty criteria for for classification. Proposals are presented to improve portrayal of both drainage and vegetation on topographic maps. The proposed drainage criteria suggest portrayal of all perennial streams as well as ephemeral drainage below the first branching. The proposed vegetation criteria suggest classification of forest and shrubs, with further sub-division of distinctive patterns of vegetation easily recognized on the aerial photographs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Application of at-site peak-streamflow frequency analyses for very low annual exceedance probabilities

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has investigated statistical methods for probabilistic flood hazard assessment to provide guidance on very low annual exceedance probability (AEP) estimation of peak-streamflow frequency and the quantification of corresponding uncertainties using streamgage-specific data. The term “very low AEP” implies exceptionally rare events defined as those having AEPs less than about 0.001 (or 1 × 10 –3 in scientific notation or for brevity 10 –3 ). Such low AEPs are of great interest to those involved with peak-streamflow frequency analyses for critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants. Flood frequency analyses at streamgages are most commonly based on annual instantaneous peak streamflow data and a probability distribution fit to these data. The fitted distribution provides a means to extrapolate to very low AEPs. Within the United States, the Pearson type III probability distribution, when fit to the base-10 logarithms of streamflow, is widely used, but other distribution choices exist. The USGS-PeakFQ software, implementing the Pearson type III within the Federal agency guidelines of Bulletin 17B (method of moments) and updates to the expected moments algorithm (EMA), was specially adapted for an “Extended Output” user option to provide estimates at selected AEPs from 10 –3 to 10 –6 . Parameter estimation methods, in addition to product moments and EMA, include L-moments, maximum likelihood, and maximum product of spacings (maximum spacing estimation). This study comprehensively investigates multiple distributions and parameter estimation methods for two USGS streamgages (01400500 Raritan River at Manville, New Jersey, and 01638500 Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Maryland). The results of this study specifically involve the four methods for parameter estimation and up to nine probability distributions, including the generalized extreme value, generalized log-normal, generalized Pareto, and Weibull. Uncertainties in streamflow estimates for corresponding AEP are depicted and quantified as two primary forms: quantile (aleatoric [random sampling] uncertainty) and distribution-choice (epistemic [model] uncertainty). Sampling uncertainties of a given distribution are relatively straightforward to compute from analytical or Monte Carlo-based approaches. Distribution-choice uncertainty stems from choices of potentially applicable probability distributions for which divergence among the choices increases as AEP decreases. Conventional goodness-of-fit statistics, such as Cramér-von Mises, and L-moment ratio diagrams are demonstrated in order to hone distribution choice. The results generally show that distribution choice uncertainty is larger than sampling uncertainty for very low AEP values.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2012

Bathymetric and velocimetric surveys at highway bridges crossing the Missouri River in and into Missouri during summer flooding, July-August 2011

Bathymetric and velocimetric surveys were conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Kansas and Missouri Departments of Transportation, in the vicinity of 36 bridges at 27 highway crossings of the Missouri River between Brownville, Nebraska and St. Louis, Missouri, from July 13 through August 3, 2011, during a summer flood. A multibeam echo sounder mapping system was used to obtain channel-bed elevations for river reaches ranging from 1,350 to 1,860 feet and extending across the active channel of the Missouri River. These bathymetric scans provide a "snapshot" of the channel conditions at the time of the surveys and provide characteristics of scour holes that may be useful in the development of predictive guidelines or equations for scour holes. These data also may be used by the Kansas and Missouri Departments of Transportation to assess the bridges for stability and integrity issues with respect to bridge scour during floods. Bathymetric data were collected around every pier that was in water, except those at the edge of water, in extremely shallow water, or surrounded by debris rafts. Scour holes were present at most piers for which bathymetry could be obtained, except at piers on channel banks, those near or embedded in lateral or longitudinal spur dikes, and those on exposed bedrock outcrops. Scour holes observed at the surveyed bridges were examined with respect to depth and shape. Although exposure of parts of foundational support elements was observed at several piers, at most sites the exposure likely can be considered minimal compared to the overall substructure that remains buried in bed material; however, there were several notable exceptions where the bed material thickness between the bottom of the scour hole and bedrock was less than 6 feet. Such substantial exposure of usually buried substructural elements may warrant special observation in future flood events. Previous bathymetric surveys had been done at several of the sites, and comparisons between bathymetric surfaces from the previous surveys and those of this study indicate substantial variability in the response of the channel bed to the 2011 summer flood conditions. At sites in Kansas City, there was no consistent deepening of the channel or increase in the size of scour holes, despite substantially more discharge and a higher water-surface elevation in the 2011 surveys, which implies the high-flow conditions during the 2011 surveys created a similar scour scenario to the previous surveys. At Jefferson City and the St. Louis sites, there was a consistent deepening of the channel, and a slight to substantial increase in the depth of scour holes in the 2011 surveys compared to previous surveys, although the effects of the higher flow appeared to be mitigated by the shape and alignment of the piers at most sites in St. Louis. Construction activities related to a new bridge at the Atchison, Kansas, site likely have contributed to the substantial additional scour observed there in a previous survey during the 2010 flooding, and the subsequent aggradation of the channel bed observed in the 2011 survey. Pier size, nose shape, and alignment to flow also had a profound effect on the size of the scour hole observed for a given pier.

Missouri;Nebraska↗
USGS2006

The Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI): 5-year report

The Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) is an innovative, multidisciplinary program that began in 2000 in response to a congressional directive for the Department of the Interior to address the issue of amphibian declines in the United States. ARMI’s formulation was cross-disciplinary, integrating U.S. Geological Survey scientists from Biology, Water, and Geography to develop a course of action (Corn and others, 2005a). The result has been an effective program with diverse, yet complementary, expertise. ARMI’s approach to research and monitoring is multiscale. Detailed investigations focus on a few species at selected local sites throughout the country; monitoring addresses a larger number of species over broader areas (typically, National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges); and inventories to document species occurrence are conducted more extensively across the landscape. Where monitoring is conducted, the emphasis is on an ability to draw statistically defensible conclusions about the status of amphibians. To achieve this objective, ARMI has instituted a monitoring response variable that has nationwide applicability. At research sites, ARMI focuses on studying species/environment interactions, determining causes of observed declines, and developing new techniques to sample populations and analyze data. Results from activities at all scales are provided to scientists, land managers, and policymakers, as appropriate. The ARMI program and the scientists involved contribute significantly to understanding amphibian declines at local, regional, national, and international levels. Within National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, findings help land managers make decisions applicable to amphibian conservation. For example, the National Park Service (NPS) selected amphibians as a vital sign for several of their monitoring networks, and ARMI scientists provide information and assistance in developing monitoring methods for this NPS effort. At the national level, ARMI has had major exposure at a variety of meetings, including a dedicated symposium at the 2004 joint meetings of the Herpetologists’ League, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Several principal investigators have brought international exposure to ARMI through venues such as the World Congress of Herpetology in South Africa in 2005 (invited presentation by Dr. Gary Fellers), the Global Amphibian Summit, sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Wildlife Conservation International, in Washington, D.C., 2005 (invited participation by Dr. P.S. Corn), and a special issue of the international herpetological journal Alytes focused on ARMI in 2004 (edited by Dr. C.K. Dodd, Jr.). ARMI research and monitoring efforts have addressed at least 7 of the 21 Threatened and Endangered Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], Chiricahua leopard frog [R. chiricahuensis], arroyo toad [Bufo californicus], dusky gopher frog [Rana sevosa], mountain yellow-legged frog [R. muscosa], flatwoods salamander [Ambystoma cingulatum], and the golden coqui [Eleutherodactylus jasperi]), and 9 additional species of concern recognized by the IUCN. ARMI investigations have addressed time-sensitive research, such as emerging infectious diseases and effects on amphibians related to natural disasters like wildfire, hurricanes, and debris flows, and the effects of more constant, environmental change, like urban expansion, road development, and the use of pesticides. Over the last 5 years, ARMI has partnered with an extensive list of government, academic, and private entities. These partnerships have been fruitful and have assisted ARMI in developing new field protocols and analytic tools, in using and refining emerging technologies to improve accuracy and efficiency of data handling, in conducting amphibian disease, malformation, and environmental effects research, and in implementing a network of monitoring and research sites. Accomplishments from these endeavors include more than 40 publications on amphibian status and trends, nearly 100 publications on amphibian ecology and causes of declines, and over 30 methodological publications. Several databases have emerged as a result of ARMI and its partnerships; one, a digital atlas of ranges for all U.S. amphibian species, was used by the IUCN to display amphibian distribution maps in the Global Amphibian Assessment Project. Given the scope of ARMI and the panoply of projects, findings have had implications for policy. Investigations that demonstrate amphibian declines or illuminate causes of declines provide valuable information about habitat management, environmental effects, mechanisms for the spread of disease, and human/amphibian interfaces. This information has been made available to land managers, scientists, educators, Congress and other policymakers, and the public. The support afforded ARMI by Congress has been influential in the program’s development and success. The value of ARMI’s efforts will continue to increase as we are able to extend our studies spatially and temporally to answer critical questions with more confidence. We are using ARMI’s resources efficiently and continuing to develop innovative mechanisms for leveraging resources for maximum effectiveness during challenging financial times. This report is a 5-year retrospective of the structure, methodology, progress, and contributions to the broader scientific community that have resulted from this national USGS program. We evaluate ARMI’s success to date, with regard to the challenges faced by the program and the strengths that have emerged. We chart objectives for the next 5 years that build on current accomplishments, highlight areas meriting further research, and direct efforts to overcome existing weaknesses.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2020

Geologic map and borehole stratigraphy of Hinkley Valley and vicinity, San Bernardino County, California

Hinkley Valley, in the central to western Mojave Desert of southeastern California, has a long historical record owing to its position as a crossroads for rail and road traffic and its position adjacent to the Mojave River. Subflow in the Mojave River provided groundwater recharge that maintained water consumption and demand by way of shallow wells for local agriculture in the valley. Its crossroads position led to construction of several power-transmission lines, pipeline, and communications cable routes that transect Hinkley Valley. One of these, a natural gas pipeline and its associated compressor station, was the locus of hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), released into, and consequent contamination of, groundwater. Understanding the movement and fate of the contaminants is a complex hydrologic and geochemical problem. Geologic mapping of the Hinkley Valley area provides framework elements for use in resolving this problem. This report provides new information on surface and subsurface geology to better constrain the origin and geometry of hydrologically important deposits in the Hinkley Valley area and describes youthful faults that may control sediment distribution and groundwater flow. The geologic map (sheet 1) presents substantial new information on surficial geology, including Pliocene deposits, but does not contain significant new work on bedrock. Bedrock investigations were specific to identifying youthful faults and representative outcrops for rocks that were penetrated by boreholes in the valley. Special attention was placed on locating and describing youthful faults. In addition, we analyzed gravity data to (1) map horizontal gradients that we interpret to reflect long-term fault traces and to (2) estimate the depth to bedrock, which is defined as Miocene and older intrusive and metamorphic rocks for the purposes of this report. The subsurface geology of Hinkley Valley was investigated by examining borehole sediment cores and rock encountered at the base of the sediment section. We analyzed the core to determine depositional environments, provenance, and age of the sediment that infilled the valley. Valleys, mountains, and basins in the Hinkley Valley area are topographically complex and incompletely named. The nearly flat floored Hinkley Valley slopes gently northward. It is framed by Mount General and the informally named “Hinkley hills” (southeast of Mount General) on the northeast and by Iron Mountain and Lynx Cat Mountain on the southwest, although breaks in the western mountains allow stream connections between Hinkley Valley and another valley to the west that is herein referred to as Hawes valley. At its south end, Hinkley Valley is traversed by the entrenched Mojave River, which passes east out of the valley past Barstow. North of Hinkley Valley, a few low hills (including Red Hill) separate the valley from a broad west-sloping piedmont that is part of the physiographic Harper Basin (of which the Harper Lake playa is the center). The lower part of this piedmont, however, is referred to as Water Valley, although it is not a distinct valley. The name derives from groundwater sourced from subflow in the Mojave River, which caused shallow water and even artesian flow in Water Valley but not in other parts of the Harper Basin. When water filled the Harper Basin to form Pleistocene Lake Harper it not only submerged Water Valley but also northern Hinkley Valley.

California↗
USGS2024

Special topic—Boreholes

Introduction Installation of instrument packages in deep (several hundred to several thousand meters) boreholes near volcanoes is relatively expensive (a few million to tens of millions of U.S. dollars), but can provide a low-noise, high-quality source of geophysical (seismic, strain, tilt, and pore pressure), physical (temperature and water level), and geochemical data. Observations from instruments at depth have the potential to provide insights into processes associated with magma intrusion, unrest, and eruption that would not otherwise be possible (Lowenstern and others, 2017; Eichelberger, 2020). Examples of instrumented boreholes in volcanic areas include the 3-kilometer (km)-deep Long Valley Exploratory Well (LVEW) in California (for example, Priest and others, 1998; Prejean and Ellsworth, 2001; Fischer and others, 2003; Roeloffs and others, 2003; Sorey and others, 2003), the 1,262 meter-deep NSF Well (commonly referred to as the “Keller Well”) within the summit caldera of Kīlauea, Hawaiʻi (Keller and others, 1979; Myren and others, 2006), and the Caribbean Andesite Lava Island-volcano Precision Seismo-geodetic Observatory (CALIPSO) project at Soufrière Hills, Montserrat, which includes a series of four 200-meter (m)-deep holes (for example, Mattioli and others, 2004; Voight and others, 2006). The Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) of the National Science Foundation’s Earthscope project placed seismometers, tiltmeters, strainmeters, and pore-pressure sensors at depths of 100 to 250 m in more than 100 boreholes scattered in western North America, including at Mount St. Helens, Washington, and Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming. The total cost for an instrumented PBO borehole ranged from $250,000 to $270,000 U.S. dollars (USD) and a few thousand USD are required annually for maintenance (David Mencin, UNAVCO, written commun., October 2020).

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

Quality of groundwater and surface water, Wood River Valley, south-central Idaho, July and August 2012

Residents and resource managers of the Wood River Valley of south-central Idaho are concerned about the effects that population growth might have on the quality of groundwater and surface water. As part of a multi-phase assessment of the groundwater resources in the study area, the U.S. Geological Survey evaluated the quality of water at 45 groundwater and 5 surface-water sites throughout the Wood River Valley during July and August 2012. Water samples were analyzed for field parameters (temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and alkalinity), major ions, boron, iron, manganese, nutrients, and Escherichia coli (E.coli) and total coliform bacteria. This study was conducted to determine baseline water quality throughout the Wood River Valley, with special emphasis on nutrient concentrations. Water quality in most samples collected did not exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for drinking water. E. coli bacteria, used as indicators of water quality, were detected in all five surface-water samples and in two groundwater samples collected. Some analytes have aesthetic-based recommended drinking water standards; one groundwater sample exceeded recommended iron concentrations. Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations varied, but tended to be higher near population centers and in agricultural areas than in tributaries and less populated areas. These higher nitrate plus nitrite concentrations were not correlated with boron concentrations or the presence of bacteria, common indicators of sources of nutrients to water. None of the samples collected exceeded drinking-water standards for nitrate or nitrite. The concentration of total dissolved solids varied considerably in the waters sampled; however a calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate water type was dominant (43 out of 50 samples) in both the groundwater and surface water. Three constituents that may be influenced by anthropogenic activity (chloride, boron, and nitrate plus nitrite) deviate from this pattern and show a wide distribution of concentrations in the unconfined aquifer, indicating possible anthropogenic influence. Time-series plots of historical water-quality data indicated that nitrate does not seem to be increasing or decreasing in groundwater over time; however, time-series plots of chloride concentrations indicate that chloride may be increasing in some wells. The small amount of temporal variability in nitrate concentrations indicates a lack of major temporal changes to groundwater inputs.

Idaho↗
USGS2015

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau study unit, 2010: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau study unit was investigated as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Priority Basin Project. The study was designed to provide a statistically unbiased assessment of untreated groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system. The depth of the primary aquifer system for the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau study unit was delineated by the depths of the screened or open intervals of wells in the State of California’s database of public-supply wells. Two types of assessments were made: a status assessment that described the current quality of the groundwater resource, and an understanding assessment that made evaluations of relations between groundwater quality and potential explanatory factors representing characteristics of the primary aquifer system. The assessments characterize the quality of untreated groundwater, not the quality of treated drinking water delivered to consumers by water distributors. The status assessment was based on water-quality data collected in 2010 by the U.S. Geological Survey from 90 wells and springs (USGS-grid wells) and on water-quality data compiled from the State of California’s regulatory compliance database for samples collected from 240 public-supply wells between September 2007 and September 2010. To provide context, the water-quality data discussed in this report were compared to California and Federal drinking-water regulatory and non-regulatory benchmarks for treated drinking water. Groundwater quality is defined in terms of relative concentrations (RCs), which are calculated by dividing the concentration of a constituent in groundwater by the concentration of the benchmark for that constituent. The RCs for inorganic constituents (major ions, trace elements, nutrients, and radioactive constituents) were classified as “high” (the RC is greater than 1.0, indicating that the concentration is above the benchmark), “moderate” (the RC is from 1.0 to greater than 0.5), or “low” (the RC is less than or equal to 0.5). For organic constituents (volatile organic compounds and pesticides) and special-interest constituents (perchlorate), the boundary between moderate and low RCs was set at 0.1. All benchmarks used for organic constituents were health-based. For inorganic constituents, health-based and aesthetic-based benchmarks were used. Constituents without benchmarks were not considered in the status assessment . The primary metric used for quantifying regional-scale groundwater quality was the aquifer-scale proportion—the areal percentages of the primary aquifer system with high, moderate, and low RCs for a given constituent or class of constituents. The study unit was divided into six study areas on the basis of geologic differences (Eastside Sacramento Valley, Honey Lake Valley groundwater basin, Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau Low Use Basins, Quaternary Volcanic Areas, Shasta Valley and Mount Shasta Volcanic Area, and Tertiary Volcanic Areas), and each study area was divided into equal-area grid cells. Aquifer-scale proportions were calculated for individual constituents and constituent classes for each of the six study areas and for the study unit as a whole by using grid-based (one well per cell) and spatially weighted (many wells per cell) statistical methods. The status assessment showed that inorganic constituents were present at high and moderate RCs in greater proportions of the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau study unit than were organic constituents. One or more inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks were present at high RCs in 9.4 percent, and at moderate RCs in 14.7 percent of the primary aquifer system. Arsenic was present at high RCs in approximately 3 percent of the primary aquifer system; boron, molybdenum, uranium, and vanadium each were present at high RCs in approximately 2 percent of the primary aquifer system. One or more inorganic constituents with aesthetic-based benchmarks were present at high RCs in 15.1 percent of the primary aquifer system and at moderate RCs in 4.9 percent. Manganese, iron, and total dissolved solids were present at high RCs in approximately 12 percent, 5 percent, and 2 percent, respectively, of the primary aquifer system. Organic constituents were not detected at high or moderate RCs in the primary aquifer system, and one or more organic constituents were detected at low RCs in approximately 40 percent of the primary aquifer system. Two classes of organic constituents were detected in more than 10 percent of the primary aquifer system: trihalomethanes (chloroform only) and herbicides. The special interest constituent perchlorate was not detected at high RCs, but was detected at moderate RCs in approximately 2 percent of the primary aquifer system. The understanding assessment relied on statistical tests to evaluate relations between concentrations of constituents and values of potential explanatory factors representing geology, land use, well construction, hydrologic conditions, groundwater age, and geochemical conditions. The majority of the high and moderate RCs of arsenic, boron, molybdenum, uranium, and total dissolved solids were in samples from the Honey Lake Valley groundwater basin study area. Groundwater mixing with hydrothermal fluids present in the study area, evaporative concentration of groundwater in the Honey Lake playa, presence of uranium-bearing sediment derived from the adjacent Sierra Nevada, and release of arsenic and other trace elements from sediments under high pH and low dissolved oxygen conditions all appeared to contribute to these elevated concentrations. Thermal springs are in many parts of the Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau study unit and could account for locally elevated concentrations of arsenic, boron, molybdenum, and total dissolved solids in samples from the other study areas. Vanadium concentrations were greater in oxic samples than in anoxic samples, but were not correlated with pH, contrary to expectations from previous studies. Organic constituents were not detected at high or moderate RCs, and the occurrence of low organic constituents at low RCs ranged from 27 percent to 73 percent of the primary aquifers system in the six study areas. The Shasta Valley and Mount Shasta Volcanic study area had significantly greater occurrence of low RCs of herbicides compared to all of the other study areas, which could reflect the greater prevalence of modern groundwater in the Shasta Valley and Mount Shasta Volcanic study area and the presence of potential sources of herbicides, including applications to timberlands and roadside rights-of-way. The Eastside Sacramento Valley study area had the greatest occurrence of low concentrations of chloroform, and chloroform occurrence was most strongly associated with the combination of septic-tank density greater than two tanks per square kilometer and urban land use greater than 10 percent within a radius of 500 meters of the well. These conditions were most prevalent in the Eastside Sacramento Valley study area. The detection frequency of low concentrations of perchlorate was consistent with the probability of occurrence expected under natural conditions, except in the Eastside Sacramento Valley study area, where detection frequencies were much higher than expected and could not be explained by known anthropogenic sources of perchlorate.

California↗
USGS1986

Archaeology and public perception of a trans-scientific problem; disposal of toxic wastes in the unsaturated zone

Predicting the effects of toxic-waste disposal on the environment over periods of millenia to hundreds of millenia is a transscientific problem; that is, one not fully addressed by quantitative scientific and engineering endeavors. Archaeology is a pertinent adjunct to such predictions in several ways. First, and foremost, archaeological records demonstrate that delicate, as well as durable, objects buried in thick unsaturated zones of arid and semiarid environments may survive intact for millenia to tens of millenia. This successful preservation of Late Paleolithic to Iron Age artifacts provides independent support for the tentative favorable conclusions of earth scientists regarding the general utility of thick unsaturated zones for toxic-waste isolation. By analogy with the archaeological record, solidified toxic wastes of low solubility that are buried in arid unsaturated zones should remain isolated from the environment indefinitely; modern man presumably should be able to improve upon the techniques used by his ancestors to isolate and preserve their sacred and utilitarian objects. Second, archaeological evidence pertinent to the fate of objects buried in unsaturated zones-although qualitative in nature and subject to the limitations of arguments by analogy-is meaningful to the public and to the courts who, with some scientists and engineers, are reluctant to rely exclusively on computer-generated predictions of the effects of buried toxic wastes on the environment. Third, the archaeological record issues a warning that our descendants may intrude into our waste disposal sites and that we must therefore take special measures to minimize such entry and, if it occurs, to warn of the dangers by a variety of symbols. And fourth, archaeology provides a record of durable natural and manmade materials that may prove to be suitable for encapsulation of our wastes and from which we can construct warning markers that will last for millenia. For these four reasons, archaeologists must join with earth scientists, and other scientists and engineers, in addressing the likely fate of solidfied toxic wastes buried in the thick (200-600 m) unsaturated zones of arid and semiarid regions. Indeed, the input of archaeology might be crucial to public acceptance of even the most carefully chosen and technically sound waste repository.

Circular↗
USGS2000

Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2000. Volume 2. Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins

Introduction The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 2, contains: (1) discharge records for 83 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 16 partial-record stations, and 24 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 12 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 11 streamflow gaging stations and 70 partial-record and project stations; and (4) water-level records for 30 ground-water network observation wells and water-quality analyses of ground water from 8 wells; and (5) water-quality analyses at 60 special study ground-water wells. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-00-2." These water-data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year the report was changed to three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published annually under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2001

Water Resources Data, Pennsylvania, Water Year 2001, Volume 2. Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins

Introduction The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 2, contains: (1) discharge records for 83 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 15 partial-record stations, and 24 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 12 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 9 streamflow gaging stations and 73 partial-record and project stations; and (4) water-level records for 36 ground-water network observation wells and water-quality analyses of ground water from 8 wells; (5) water-quality analyses at 123 special study ground-water wells; and, (6) miscellaneous water-level measurements at 80 special study ground-water wells. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-01-2." These water-data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year the report was changed to three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published annually under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2006

FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)

PLEASE NOTE: This now-approved 'FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)' officially supercedes its earlier (2000) Public Review Draft version (see 'Earlier Versions of the Standard' below). In August 2006, the Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization was officially endorsed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as the national standard for the digital cartographic representation of geologic map features (FGDC Document Number FGDC-STD-013-2006). Presented herein is the PostScript Implementation of the standard, which will enable users to directly apply the symbols in the standard to geologic maps and illustrations prepared in desktop illustration and (or) publishing software. The FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization contains descriptions, examples, cartographic specifications, and notes on usage for a wide variety of symbols that may be used on typical, general-purpose geologic maps and related products such as cross sections. The standard also can be used for different kinds of special-purpose or derivative map products and databases that may be focused on a specific geoscience topic (for example, slope stability) or class of features (for example, a fault map). The standard is scale-independent, meaning that the symbols are appropriate for use with geologic mapping compiled or published at any scale. It will be useful to anyone who either produces or uses geologic map information, whether in analog or digital form. Please be aware that this standard is not intended to be used inflexibly or in a manner that will limit one's ability to communicate the observations and interpretations gained from geologic mapping. In certain situations, a symbol or its usage might need to be modified in order to better represent a particular feature on a geologic map or cross section. This standard allows the use of any symbol that doesn't conflict with others in the standard, provided that it is clearly explained on the map and in the database. In addition, modifying the size, color, and (or) lineweight of an existing symbol to suit the needs of a particular map or output device also is permitted, provided that the modified symbol's appearance is not too similar to another symbol on the map. Be aware, however, that reducing lineweights below .125 mm (.005 inch) may cause symbols to plot incorrectly if output at higher resolutions (1800 dpi or higher). For guidelines on symbol usage, as well as on color design and map labeling, please refer to the standard's introductory text. Also found there are informational sections covering concepts of geologic mapping and some definitions of geologic map features, as well as sections on the newly defined concepts and terminology for the scientific confidence and locational accuracy of geologic map features. More information on both the past development and the future maintenance of the FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization can be found at the FGDC Geologic Data Subcommittee website (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/). Earlier Versions of the Standard

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2001

Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2000, Volume 1. Delaware River Basin

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio River and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 1, contains: (1) discharge records for 76 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 7 partial-record stations, and 13 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 14 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 28 gaging stations and 14 ungaged streamsites; (4) water-quality records for 77 special-study stations; (5) water-level records for 53 network observation wells; and (6) water-quality analyses of ground water from 101 ground-water wells. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-00-1." These water data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginningwith the 1975 water year the report was changed to its present format of three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address given on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section, at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2025

Selected special conditions affecting peak streamflow and extreme floods in Alaska through water year 2022

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, inventoried selected special conditions for annual peak flows and identified extreme floods at streamgages in Alaska through water year 2022 to facilitate hydrologic analysis. Special conditions identified from U.S. Geological Survey gaging records and basin characteristics included regulation and diversion, urbanization, indeterminate drainage areas, drainage areas less than the minimum used in regional analyses, glacial lake outburst floods, other outburst floods, and snowmelt floods. For peak flows that occurred during calendar years 1980–2019, an atmospheric river dataset was used to identify atmospheric river presence or absence on the dates peak flows occurred. Extreme floods (defined as peak flows exceeding the 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood magnitude or an empirical measure of relative magnitude using Creager’s coefficient C) were identified and associated with flood-generating mechanisms using the other inventoried special conditions and other information. The gaging record contained glacial lake outburst floods at 15 streamgages and other types of outburst floods at 10 streamgages. Non-outburst peak flows in Alaska resulted from a mixture of rainfall and melt-based flood-generating mechanisms in all but the most rain-dominated seasonal flow regime. Melt-based flood-generating mechanisms included snowmelt, high-elevation snow and ice melt, or rain-on-snow events. Atmospheric rivers were common in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada, occurring in that region on 67 percent of the days in the calendar year 1980–2019 period. Atmospheric rivers were more common on the days of peak flows and even more common on the days of non-outburst extreme floods. The percentage of days when an atmospheric river was present increased to 78 percent for the days of peak flows in that period and to 83 percent for the days of non-outburst extreme floods in that period. Of 149 extreme floods in the gaging record, 38 were generated by outburst floods. Of the non-outburst extreme floods, 72 percent were generated by rainfall and 26 percent were generated by melt-based processes or a combination of rainfall and melt-based processes. Flood-generating mechanisms could not be determined for the final 2 percent of the non-outburst extreme floods because the month and day of the peak flows were unknown and no other information was available. Secondary factors strongly associated with extreme floods included antecedent rain and streamflow conditions and warm storm conditions that produced rain instead of snow or generated snowmelt.

Alaska↗
USGS2001

Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2000. Volume 3. Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins

Introduction The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 3, contains: (1) discharge records for 58 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 5 partial-record stations, and 12 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 11 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 1 streamflow gaging station and 8 ungaged streamsites; and (4) water-level records for 15 ground-water network observation wells and. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-00-3." These water-data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year the report was changed to three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published annually under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.

Water Data Report↗