Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Water Resources Summary”

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 667 records · Page 37Linked to original sources
USGS2016

Normal streamflows and water levels continue—Summary of hydrologic conditions in Georgia, 2014

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC) Georgia office, in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, maintains a long-term hydrologic monitoring network of more than 350 real-time, continuous-record, streamflow-gaging stations (streamgages). The network includes 14 real-time lake-level monitoring stations, 72 real-time surface-water-quality monitors, and several water-quality sampling programs. Additionally, the SAWSC Georgia office operates more than 204 groundwater monitoring wells, 39 of which are real-time. The wide-ranging coverage of streamflow, reservoir, and groundwater monitoring sites allows for a comprehensive view of hydrologic conditions across the State. One of the many benefits this monitoring network provides is a spatially distributed overview of the hydrologic conditions of creeks, rivers, reservoirs, and aquifers in Georgia. Streamflow and groundwater data are verified throughout the year by USGS hydrographers and made available to water-resource managers, recreationists, and Federal, State, and local agencies. Hydrologic conditions are determined by comparing the statistical analyses of data collected during the current water year to historical data. Changing hydrologic conditions underscore the need for accurate, timely data to allow informed decisions about the management and conservation of Georgia’s water resources for agricultural, recreational, ecological, and water-supply needs and in protecting life and property.

Georgia↗
USGS2013

Brookian sequence well log correlation sections and occurrence of gas hydrates, north-central North Slope, Alaska

Gas hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline, ice-like substances that consist of natural gas molecules trapped in a solid-water lattice. Because of the compact nature of their structure, hydrates can effectively store large volumes of gas and, consequently, have been identified as a potential unconventional energy source. First recognized to exist geologically in the 1960s, significant accumulations of gas hydrate have been found throughout the world. Gas hydrate occurrence is limited to environments such as permafrost regions and subsea sediments because of the pressure and temperature conditions required for their formation and stability. Permafrost-associated gas hydrate accumulations have been discovered in many regions of the Arctic, including Russia, Canada, and the North Slope of Alaska. Gas hydrate research has a long history in northern Alaska. This research includes the drilling, coring, and well log evaluation of two gas hydrate stratigraphic test wells and two resource assessments of gas hydrates on the Alaska North Slope. Building upon these previous investigations, this report provides a summary of the pertinent well log, gas hydrate, and stratigraphic data for key wells related to gas hydrate occurrence in the north-central North Slope. The data are presented in nine well log correlation sections with 122 selected wells to provide a regional context for gas hydrate accumulations and the relation of the accumulations to key stratigraphic horizons and to the base of the ice-bearing permafrost. Also included is a well log database that lists the location, available well logs, depths, and other pertinent information for each of the wells on the correlation section.

Alaska↗
USGS1999

Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Introduction and national summary

The Ground Water Atlas of the United States provides a summary of the most important information available for each principal aquifer, or rock unit that will yield usable quantities of water to wells, throughout the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Atlas is an outgrowth of the Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a program that investigated 24 of the most important aquifers and aquifer systems of the Nation and one in the Caribbean Islands (fig. 1). The objectives of the RASA program were to define the geologic and hydrologic frameworks of each aquifer system, to assess the geochemistry of the water in the system, to characterize the ground-water flow system, and to describe the effects of development on the flow system. Although the RASA studies did not cover the entire Nation, they compiled much of the data needed to make the National assessments of ground-water resources presented in the Ground Water Atlas of the United States. The Atlas, however, describes the location, extent, and geologic and hydrologic characteristics of all the important aquifers in the United States, including those not studied by the RASA program. The Atlas is written so that it can be understood by readers who are not hydrologists. Simple language is used to explain technical terms. The principles that control the presence, movement, and chemical quality of ground water in different climatic, topographic, and geologic settings are clearly illustrated. The Atlas is, therefore, useful as a teaching tool for introductory courses in hydrology or hydrogeology at the college level and as an overview of ground-water conditions for consultants who need information about an individual aquifer. It also serves as an introduction to regional and National ground-water resources for lawmakers, personnel of local, State, or Federal agencies, or anyone who needs to understand ground-water occurrence, movement, and quality. The purpose of the Ground Water Atlas of the United States is to summarize, in one publication with a common format, the most important ground-water information that has been collected over many years by the USGS, other Federal agencies, and State and local water management agencies. The purpose of this introductory chapter is to describe the content of the Atlas; to discuss the characteristics, use, and limitations of the maps and other types of illustrations used in the different chapters of the book; to summarize the locations of the principal aquifers on a Nationwide map; and to give an example of an aquifer in each principal hydrogeologic setting.

Hydrologic Atlas↗
USGS2006

USGS analysis of the Australian UNCLOS submission

In November 2004, the Government of Australia made a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for 10 extended continental shelf (ECS) regions, utilizing Article-76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). With information provided in the Australian Executive Summary, the USGS examined the 10 regions of the submission from geological, morphological, and resource perspectives. By their own request, the Australians asked that CLCS take no action on the Australian-Antarctic Territory. The major limitation in this analysis is that no bathymetric soundings or detailed hydrographic profiles were provided in the Australian Executive Summary that might show why the Foot of the Slope (FOS) was chosen or where the 2,500-m contour is located. This represents a major limitation because more than half of the 4,205 boundary points utilize the bathymetric formula line and more than one-third of them utilize the bathymetric constraint line. CLCS decisions on the components of this submission may set a precedent for how ECSs are treated in future submissions. Some of the key decisions will cover (a) how a 'natural prolongation' of a continental margin is determined, particularly if a bathymetric saddle that appears to determine the prolongation is in deep water and is well outside of the 200-nm limit (Exmouth Plateau), (b) defining to what extent that plateaus, rises, caps, banks and spurs that are formed of oceanic crust and from oceanic processes can be considered to be 'natural prolongations' (Kerguelen Plateau), (c) to what degree UNCLOS recognizes reefs and uninhabited micro-islands (specifically, rocks and/or sand shoals) as islands that can have an EEZ (Middleton and Elizabeth Reefs north of Lord Howe Island), and (d) how the Foot of the Slope (FOS) is chosen (Great Australian Bight). The submission contains situations that are relevant to potential future U.S. submissions and are potentially analogous to certain features of the US margins. The Australian margin has significant geological and morphological variety, similar to the US margin and gives a good idea of the complexity of issues related to the U.S. margin. Decisions about basins and ridges in the Lord Howe Rise and Three Kings Ridge regions will likely bear on the status of ridges in the Arctic, such as Lomonosov Ridge. The Naturaliste Plateau and the South Tasman Rise appear to have parallels with the Chukchi Plateau in the Arctic and the Blake Plateau off the southeastern U.S. The ECS on Macquarie Island/Ridge may determine how boundaries along ridges such as the Mariannas are treated.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1994

Verification of a national water data base using a geographic information system

The National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX) was developed to assist users of water-resource data in the identification, location, and acquisition of data. The Master Water Data Index (MWDI) of NAWDEX currently indexes the data collected by 423 organizations from nearly 500,000 sites throughout the United Stales. The utilization of new computer technologies permit the distribution of the MWDI to the public on compact disc. In addition, geographic information systems (GIS) are now available that can store and analyze these data in a spatial format. These recent innovations could increase access and add new capabilities to the MWDI. Before either of these technologies could be employed, however, a quality-assurance check of the MWDI needed to be performed. The MWDI resides on a mainframe computer in a tabular format. It was copied onto a workstation and converted to a GIS format. The GIS was used to identify errors in the MWDI and produce reports that summarized these errors. The summary reports were sent to the responsible contributing agencies along with instructions for submitting their corrections to the NAWDEX Program Office. The MWDI administrator received reports that summarized all of the errors identified. Of the 494,997 sites checked, 93,440 sites had at least one error (18.9 percent error rate).

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Changing Perceptions of World Oil and Gas Resources as Shown by Recent USGS Petroleum Assessments

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) periodically conducts geology-based assessments of the oil and gas resources of the world in recognition of the fact that the United States economic security is closely linked to energy resources outside the United States. Four such petroleum assessments have been published in recent years (Masters and others, 1984, 1987, 1991, and 1994). A summary of these assessments (table 1) indicates the magnitude of world conventional oil and gas resources, as perceived in the 1980s and 1990s by the USGS. These four successive world petroleum assessments evidence changes in perception through time. The assessments were prepared using a consistent methodology by the same core group of geologists. Because of this continuity, differences among the four assessments can be largely attributed to an evolving understanding of world recoverable oil and gas resources rather than to procedural or philosophical changes. In this fact sheet, some of the trends in the estimates of table 1 are examined with a view toward better understanding world oil and gas resources in the context of the next few decades.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2020

The Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) surface-water interpolation model, version 3

The Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) is an integrated network of water-level gages, interpolation models that estimate daily water-level data at ungaged locations, and applications that generate derived hydrologic data across the freshwater part of the Greater Everglades landscape. Version 3 (V3) of the EDEN interpolation surface-water model is the most recent update, replacing the version 2 (V2) model released in 2011. The primary revision for the V3 model is the switch to the R programming language to create a more efficient and portable EDEN code relative to V2, without reliance on proprietary software. Using R, the interpolation script runs over 10 times faster and is more easily updated, for example, to accommodate changes in the gage network or to incorporate R software updates. Additional revisions made for the V3 model include updates to the interpolation model, the gage network, and groundwater-level estimations. The EDEN model domain in the Greater Everglades and Big Cypress National Preserve is divided into subdomains that are based on hydrologic boundaries. In the V3 model, the number of subdomains was increased from five to eight, which allows hydrologic boundaries, such as levees and canals, to be better represented in the interpolation scheme. Five pseudogages were added to constrain the water-level surface at subdomain boundaries. Changes made to the water-level gage network between the implementation of the V2 and V3 models are incorporated, and groundwater-level estimations are added, which are important information for hydrologic and ecological studies. Summary model performance statistics indicate similar accuracy in water-level surfaces generated by the V3 and V2 models, with a root mean square error of 4.78 centimeters for both interpolation models against independent water-level measurements. Providing stability and continuity for the EDEN user community, the V3 model closely replicates the V2 model, with a root mean square difference of 3.87 centimeters for interpolated surfaces from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2018. The additional groundwater levels provide a realistic estimate of the saturated groundwater surface continuous with the surface-water surface for Water Conservation Areas 2A and 2B from 2000 to 2011. This continuous surface is a more accurate estimation of the spatial distribution of water in the hydrologic system than before, providing needed information for ecological studies in areas where depth to water table affects habitats. Development of the EDEN V3 model advances the tools available to scientists and resource managers for guiding large-scale field operations, describing hydrologic changes, and supporting biological and ecological assessments.

Florida↗
USGS2021

Summary of wetland carbon and environmental management: Path forward

Wetlands around the world are under pressure from both anthropogenic sources such as land-use change and accelerating climate change (Erwin, 2009; Moomaw et al., 2018). Storage of carbon resources is a key ecosystem service of wetlands and offer natural solutions to climate change mitigation; policies and management actions could determine the fate of these resources and their contributions to climate mitigation and society needs. Inland and tidal wetlands store and sequester more carbon in soil and biomass than any other ecosystems on a per unit area basis, but also are responsible for the majority of ecosystem methane emissions (NASEM, 2019; Knox et al., 2019). Most of wetland carbon is stored deep in soils, thus providing long-term preservation of the resource (Nahlik and Fennessy, 2016). In addition to productive carbon sequestration in situ, wetlands also play a major role in lateral fluxes of carbon and other greenhouse gases along the continuum of different landscape features, including lakes, rivers, and coastal waters (Aufdenkampe et al., 2011; Ciais et al., 2008; Troxler et al., 2013). The ability of wetlands to regulate key processes of the carbon cycle is related to characteristics of the ecosystem, particularly hydrologic functions (Zhou et al., 2018). Disturbances to wetland hydrology, from land use change to natural disturbances such as wildfire, could lead to major disruptions to the wetland carbon cycle (Moomaw et al., 2018). This book is organized to first introduce fundamentals of wetland biogeochemistry (Neubauer and Megonigal, 2020) and carbon stock distribution and management in broad geographic and temporal domains, then provide a more in-depth treatment of case studies of different wetland types across the world (Fig. 1). A range of wetland management actions are described in the context of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions, including hydrology, sediment, avoided loss, restoration, wildfire, and co-habitation of multiple uses. Different wetland types or land uses considered in this book include freshwater herbaceous wetlands, peatlands of temperate as well as tropical climate, coastal tidal marshes and mangroves, drained croplands, and rice paddies.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2020

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, monitors stations designed for the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network, a collection of stations that monitor streams and springs in Missouri. During water year 2020 (October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), the U.S. Geological Survey collected water-quality data at 72 stations: 70 Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring stations and 2 U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Network stations. Among the stations in this report, four stations have data from additional sampling completed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water-quality analyses are provided for dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, Escherichia coli bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc, and selected pesticide compounds. Monitoring stations have been classified based on the physiographic province or primary land use in the watershed or based on the unique hydrologic characteristics of the waterbodies (springs, large rivers) monitored. A summary of hydrologic conditions including peak streamflows, monthly mean streamflows, and 7-day low flows also are provided for representative streamgages in the State.

Missouri↗
USGS2023

Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2021

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, maintains a statewide group of stations known as the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network, which includes selected streams and springs in Missouri. During water year 2021 (October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021), the U.S. Geological Survey collected water-quality data at 72 stations: 70 Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network stations and 2 U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Network stations. Four of the stations have data from additional sampling completed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water-quality data provided in this report include dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, Escherichia coli bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc, and selected pesticide compounds. Monitoring stations have been classified based on the physiographic province or primary land use in the drainage basin or based on the unique hydrologic characteristics of the waterbodies (springs, large rivers) monitored. A summary of hydrologic conditions, including peak streamflows, monthly mean streamflows, and 7-day low flows, also is provided for representative streamgages in the State.

Missouri↗
USGS1942

Underground-water investigation in Utah: A part of Chapter 5 in Twenty-third biennial report of the State Engineer to the governor of Utah: 1940-1942

Systematic underground-water investigations have been in progress in the State of Utah since 1935 by the Federal Geological Survey in cooperation with the state engineer. The general plan and outline of these investigations, together with a summary of results accomplished to June 30, 1940, are given in the Twentieth, Twenty-first, and Twenty-second biennial reports of the state engineer to the governor of Utah. The investigations include two important phases: (1) A determination of the fluctuations of water levels and artesian pressures in most of the underground-water areas in the state, based on periodic measurements with steel tapes and on charts of automatic water-state recorders and pressure recorders, and (2) detailed investigations of individual underground-water areas to determine the source, movement, disposal, quantity, and quality of underground water, and to show the relation of present development to the maximum economic development of those areas. The aim of the investigation is to determine and make available factual data as to underground-water conditions in the different areas of the state so that they may serve to guide the state engineer in an equitable adjudication of underground-water resources.

Utah↗
USGS2009

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009

Each chapter of the 2009 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2008 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. For mineral commodities for which there is a Government stockpile, detailed information concerning the stockpile status is included in the two-page synopsis. Because specific information concerning committed inventory was no longer available from the Defense Logistics Agency, National Defense Stockpile Center, that information, which was included in earlier Mineral Commodity Summaries publications, has been deleted from Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009. National reserves and reserve base information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves and reserve base estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves and reserve base information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, common business practice, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves and reserve base information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves and reserve base information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves and reserve base reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves and reserve base estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves or reserve base to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves and reserve base is a continuing process, and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2009 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗
USGS1966

Geological Survey Research 1966, Chapter A

'Geological Survey Research 1966' is the seventh annual review of the econamic and scientific work of the U.S. Geological Survey. As in previous years the purpose of the volume is to make available promptly to the public the highlights of Survey investigations. This year the volume consists of 4 chapters (A through D) of Professional Paper 550. Chapter A contains a summary of significant results, and the remaining chapters are made up of collections of short technical papers. Many of the results summarized in chapter A are discussed in greater detail in the short papers or in reports listed in 'Publications in Fiscal Year 1966,' beginning on page A265. The tables of contents for chapters B through D are listed on pages A259-A264. Numerous Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies listed on pages A211-A215 cooperated financially with the Geological Survey during fiscal 1966 and have contributed significantly to the results reported here. They are identified where appropriate in the short technical papers that have appeared in Geological Survey Research and in papers published cooperatively, but generally are not identified in the brief statements in chapter A. Many individuals on the staff of the Geological Survey have contributed to 'Geological Survey Research 1966.' Reference is made to only a few. Frank W. Trainer, Water Resources Division, was responsible for organizing and assembling chapter A and for critical review of papers in chapters B-D, assisted by Louis Pavlides, Geologic Division. Marston S. Chase, Publications Division, was in charge of production aspects of the series, assisted by Jesse R. Upperco in technical editing, and William H. Elliott and James R. Hamilton in planning and preparing illustrations. The volume for next year, 'Geological Survey Research 1967,' will be published as chapters af Professional Paper 5715. Previous volumes are listed below, with their series designations. Gealagical Survey Research 1960-Prof. Paper 400 Gealagical Survey Research 1961-Prof. Paper 424 Gealagical Survey Research 1962-Prof. Paper 450 Gealagical Survey Research 1963-Prof. Paper 475 Gealagical Survey Research 1964-Prof. Paper 501 Gealagical Survey Research 1965-Prof. Paper 525

Professional Paper↗
USGS1999

Comparison of two approaches for determining ground-water discharge and pumpage in the lower Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, 1997-98

In March 1994, the Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) adopted “Rules Governing the Measurement of Tributary Ground Water Diversions Located in the Arkansas River Basin” (Office of the State Engineer, 1994); these initial rules were amended in February 1996 (Office of the State Engineer, 1996). The amended rules require users of wells that divert tributary ground water to annually report the water pumped monthly by each well. The rules allow a well owner to report the pumpage measured by a totalizing flowmeter (TFM) or pumpage determined from electrical power data and a power conversion coefficient (PCC) (Hurr and Litke, 1989). Opinions by representatives of the State of Kansas, presented before the Special Master hearing a court case [State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, No. 105 Original (1996)] concerning post-Compact well pumping, stated that the PCC approach does not provide the same level of accuracy and reliability as a TFM when used to determine pumpage. In 1997, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the CDWR, began a 2-year study to compare ground-water pumpage estimates made using the TFM and the PCC approaches. The study area was along the Arkansas River between Pueblo, Colorado, and the Colorado-Kansas State line (fig. 1). The two approaches for estimating ground-water discharge and pumpage were compared for more than 100 wells completed in the alluvial aquifer of the Arkansas River Basin. The TFM approach uses an inline flowmeter to directly measure instantaneous discharge and the total volume of water pumped at a well. The PCC approach uses electrical power consumption records and a power conversion coefficient to estimate the pumpage at ground-water wells. This executive summary describes the results of the comparison of the two approaches. Specifically, (1) the differences in instantaneous discharge measured with three portable flowmeters and measured with an inline TFM are evaluated, and the statistical differences in paired instantaneous discharge between the two approaches are determined; (2) short- and long-term variations in the PCC’s are presented; (3) differences in pumpage between the two approaches are evaluated, and the statistical differences in pumpage between the two approaches are determined; (4) potential sources of discrepancy between pumpage estimates are discussed; and (5) differences in total network pumpage using the two approaches are presented. During the irrigation seasons of 1997 and 1998, instantaneous discharge and electrical power demand were measured at randomly selected wells to determine PCC’s. At more than 100 wells, the PCC’s determined during the 1998 season were applied to total electrical power consumption data that was recorded between the initial and final readings at each network well site in 1998 to estimate total ground-water pumpage. At each site, an inline TFM was installed in a full-flowing, acceptable test section of pipe on the discharge side of the pump where the measurement of discharge was made. Measurements of instantaneous ground-water discharge also were made using three different types of portable flowmeters. The average velocity multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the discharge pipe was used to compute the discharge in gallons per minute. Whenever possible, discharge measurements were made at each network site using all three types of portable flowmeters.

Colorado↗
USGS2010

U.S. Geological Survey Streamgage Operation and Maintenance Cost Evaluation...from the National Streamflow Information Program

To help meet the goal of providing earth-science information to the Nation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates and maintains the largest streamgage network in the world, with over 7,600 active streamgages in 2010. This network is operated in cooperation with over 850 Federal, tribal, State, and local funding partners. The streamflow information provided by the USGS is used for the protection of life and property; for the assessment, allocation, and management of water resources; for the design of roads, bridges, dams, and water works; for the delineation of flood plains; for the assessment and evaluation of habitat; for understanding the effects of land-use, water-use, and climate changes; for evaluation of water quality; and for recreational safety and enjoyment. USGS streamgages are managed and operated to rigorous national standards, allowing analyses of data from streamgages in different areas and spanning long time periods, some with more than 100 years of data. About 90 percent of USGS streamgages provide streamflow information real-time on the web. Physical measurements of streamflow are made at streamgages multiple times a year, depending on flow conditions, to ensure the highest level of accuracy possible. In addition, multiple reviews and quality assurance checks are performed before the data is finalized. In 2006, the USGS reviewed all activities, operations, equipment, support, and costs associated with operating and maintaining a streamgage program (Norris and others, 2008). A summary of the percentages of costs associated with activities required to operate a streamgage on an annual basis are presented in figure 1. This information represents what it costs to fund a 'typical' USGS streamgage and how those funds are utilized. It should be noted that some USGS streamgages have higher percentages for some categories than do others depending on location and conditions. Forty-one percent of the funding for the typical USGS streamgage is for labor costs of the USGS staff responsible for the measurement of the streamflow in the field and the time in the office to quality assure and finalize the data. It is reasonable that funding for the entire national streamgage network would closely follow the percentages shown in figure 1 as to how the funds are invested in the network. However, actual costs are specific to a particular streamgage and can vary substantially depending on location and operational issues.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2015

Assessment of interim flow water-quality data of the San Joaquin River restoration program and implications for fishes, California, 2009-11

After more than 50 years of extensive water diversion for urban and agriculture use, a major settlement was reached among the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority in an effort to restore the San Joaquin River. The settlement received Federal court approval in October 2006 and established the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, a multi-agency collaboration between State and Federal agencies to restore and maintain fish populations, including Chinook salmon, in the main stem of the river between Friant Dam and the confluence with the Merced River. This is to be done while avoiding or minimizing adverse water supply effects to all of the Friant Division contractors that could result from restoration flows required by the settlement. The settlement stipulates that water- and sediment-quality data be collected to help assess the restoration goals. This report summarizes and evaluates water-quality data collected in the main stem of the San Joaquin River between Friant Dam and the Merced River by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program during 2009-11. This summary and assessment consider sampling frequency for adequate characterization of variability, sampling locations for sufficient characterization of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program restoration reach, sampling methods for appropriate media (water and sediment), and constituent reporting limits. After reviewing the water- and sediment-quality results for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, several suggestions were made to the Fisheries Management Work Group, a division of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program that focuses solely on the reintroduction strategies and health of salmon and other native fishes in the river. Water-quality results for lead and total organic carbon exceeded the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Basin Plan Objectives for the San Joaquin Basin, and results for copper exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs' aquatic-life chronic and acute benchmarks for invertebrates. One sediment sample contained detections of pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, and total permethrin at concentrations above published chronic toxicity thresholds.

California↗
USGS1988

Statistical summary of selected water-quality data (water years 1975 through 1985) for Arkansas rivers and streams

Descriptive statistics were calculated for selected water quality data for 116 water quality stations on Arkansas rivers and streams. Water quality properties summarized included pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity, total hardness, common dissolved constituents, phosphorus, nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand, bacteria, turbidity, suspended sediment, and several trace metals. Regression equations and related statistics describing the relation between specific conductance and total alkalinity and several dissolved constituents also were calculated. Typical water quality (based upon median values at individual stations) of physiographic sections and major rivers of Arkansas also is discussed. Discernible differences in water quality exist between sections and major rivers. The regression analysis indicated that the usefulness of specific conductance as a predictor of other water quality values is variable. The relation between specific conductance and the other property is not statistically significant (p>0.05) about 30% of the time. (USGS)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2020

Fisheries research and monitoring activities of the Lake Erie Biological Station, 2019

A comprehensive understanding of fish populations and their interactions is the cornerstone of modern fishery management and the basis for Fish Community Goals and Objectives for Lake Erie (Ryan et al. 2003). This report is responsive to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) obligations via Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Great Lakes Council of Lake Committees (CLC) to provide scientific information in support of fishery management. Goals for the USGS Great Lakes Deepwater Fish Assessment and Ecological Studies in 2019 were to monitor long-term changes in the fish community and population dynamics of key fishes of interest to management agencies. Specific to Lake Erie, expectations of this agreement were sustained investigations of native percids, forage (prey) fish populations, and Lake Trout. Our 2019 deepwater program operations began in April and concluded in December, and utilized trawl, gillnet, hydroacoustic, lower trophic sampling, and telemetry methods. This work resulted in 88 bottom trawls covering 65 ha of lake-bottom and catching 24,140 fish totaling 3,622 kg during three separate trawl surveys in the West and Central basins of Lake Erie. Overnight gillnet sets (n=44) for cold water species were performed at 42 unique locations in the West and East basins of Lake Erie. A total of 8.0 km of gillnet was deployed during these surveys, which caught 286 fish, 114 of which were native coldwater species: Lake Trout, Burbot, and Lake Whitefish. USGS hydroacoustic surveys in 2019 produced 240 km of transects, and lower trophic sampling provided data from zooplankton samples (n=21) and water quality profiles (n=21) to populate a database maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), Ohio Division of Natural Resources (ODNR), Michigan Division of Natural Resources (MDNR), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). USGS also assisted CLC member agencies with deployment and maintenance of the Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observation System (GLATOS) throughout all three Lake Erie sub-basins, supporting multiple coordinated telemetry investigations. In 2019, Lake Trout investigations included annual gill net surveys and acoustic telemetry of spawning migration and habitat use in coordination with OMNRF, NYSDEC, and PFBC. Results from Lake Trout investigations were reported in the Coldwater Task Group annual report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) and the CLC (Coldwater Task Group 2020). Likewise, interagency forage fish assessments conducted with hydroacoustics were summarized and reported in the Forage Task Group annual report (Forage Task Group 2020). This report presents biomass-based summaries of fish communities in western Lake Erie derived from USGS bottom trawl surveys conducted from 2013 to 2019 during June and September. The survey design provided temporal and spatial coverage that did not exist in the historic interagency trawl database, and thus complemented the August ODNR-OMNRF effort to reinforce stock assessments with more robust data. Analyses herein evaluated trends in: total biomass, abundance of dominant predator and forage species, non-native species composition, biodiversity and community structure. Data from this effort can be explored interactively online (https://lebs.shinyapps.io/western-basin/), and are accessible for download (https://doi.org/10.5066/P9LL6YOR, Keretz et al. 2020). Annual survey data are added to these sources as the data become available.

Lake Erie↗