Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Water Resources Technical Report”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS1937

Fifty-eighth annual report of the Director of the Geological Survey

During the fiscal year 1937 the Geological Survey continued its systematic work in investigating, mapping, and reporting on the geology, the mineral and water resources, and the physical features of the United States. The results of this work are basic in all conservational activities, as those who plan and direct the conservation policies toward the wise development and use of the Nation's resources must first have the facts about the quantity, quality, distribution, and availability of those resources and adequate maps with which to pursue and record further studies. Through its technical supervision of prospecting, mining, and producing operations on public and Indian land under permits, leases, and licenses, the Survey was directly engaged in the practical application of conservation policies.

Annual Report↗
USGS1994

Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility of the U.S. Geological Survey, annual report for fiscal year 1993

The Hydrologic lnstrumentation Facility (HIF) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has nationwide responsibility for all aspects of hydrologic field instrumentation in support of Survey data-collection programs. Each year the HIF publishes a report to inform Water Resources Division (WRD) personnel of progress made by the HIF in fulfilling its mission to improve instrumentation services to the Division. The report for fiscal year 1993 (FY93) describes the activities of the HIF, including major accomplish- ments for the year; personnel actions; active projects (reported by section--Technical Services Section, Administrative Services Section, Field Coordination, Applications and Development Section, Test and Evaluation Section, Field Service and Supply Section); and planned activities for the coming year. Also presented in the appendixes are detailed listings of the memberships of the Instrumentation Committee and the Instrumentation Technical Advisory Subcommittee; district, sub- district, and field office visits by HIF personnel; professional and technical meetings attended by HIF personnel; vendor visits; and reports prepared by HIF personnel.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

System characterization report on Resourcesat-2 Advanced Wide Field Sensor

Executive Summary This report addresses system characterization of the Indian Space Research Organisation Resourcesat-2 Advanced Wide Field Sensor (AWiFS) and is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence in 2021. These reports present and detail the methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the specific sensing system being evaluated; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. Resourcesat-2 is a medium-resolution satellite launched in 2011 on the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle-C16. Resourcesat-2 carries the same sensing elements as Resourcesat-1 (launched in October 2003) and provides continuity for the mission. The objectives of the Resourcesat mission are to provide remote sensing data services to global users, focusing on data for integrated land and water resources management. Resourcesat-2A is identical to Resourcesat-2 and was launched in 2016 on the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle-C36 launch vehicle for continuity of data and improved temporal resolution. The two satellites operating in tandem improved the revisit capability from 5 days to 2–3 days. The Resourcesat-2 platform is of Indian Remote Sensing Satellites-1C/1D–P3 heritage and was built by the Indian Space Research Organisation. Resourcesat-2 and Resourcesat-2A carry the AWiFS, Linear Imaging Self Scanning-3, and Linear Imaging Self Scanning-4 sensors for medium-resolution imaging. More information on Indian Space Research Organisation satellites and sensors is available in the “2020 Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation—Remote Sensing Satellite Compendium” and from the manufacturer at https://www.isro.gov.in/ . The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence system characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (interior and exterior), radiometric, and spatial performances. Results of these analyses indicate that AWiFS has an interior geometric performance in the range of −16.080 (−0.268 pixel) to 35.520 meters (m; 0.592 pixel) in easting and −25.680 (−0.428 pixel) to 23.400 m (0.390 pixel) in northing in band-to-band registration, an exterior geometric error of −64.262 (−1.071 pixels) to −19.059 m (−0.318 pixel) in easting and −29.028 (−0.484 pixel) to 41.249 m (0.687 pixel) in northing offset in comparison to the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager, a radiometric performance in the range of 2.29–2.36 pixels for full width at half maximum, with a modulation transfer function at a Nyquist frequency in the range of 0.030–0.035.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1981

Assessment of impacts of proposed coal-resource and related economic development on water resources, Yampa River basin, Colorado and Wyoming: A summary

Expanded mining and use of coal resources in the Rocky Mountain region of the western United States will have substantial impacts on water resources, environmental amenities, and social and economic conditions. The U.S. Geological Survey has completed a 3-year assessment of the Yampa River basin, Colorado and Wyoming, where increased coal-resource development has begun to affect the environment and quality of life. Economic projections of the overall effects of coal-resource development were used to estimate water use and the types and amounts of waste residuals that need to be assimilated into the environment. Based in part upon these projections, several physical-based models and other semiquantitative assessment methods were used to determine possible effects upon the basin's water resources. Depending on the magnitude of mining and use of coal resources in the basin, an estimated 0.7 to 2.7 million tons (0.6 to 2.4 million metric tons) of waste residuals may be discharged annually into the environment by coal-resource development and associated economic activities. If the assumed development of coal resources in the basin occurs, annual consumptive use of water, which was approximately 142,000 acre-feet (175 million cubic meters) during 1975, may almost double by 1990. In a related analysis of alternative cooling systems for coal-conversion facilities, four to five times as much water may be used consumptively in a wet-tower, cooling-pond recycling system as in once-through cooling. An equivalent amount of coal transported by slurry pipeline would require about one-third the water used consumptively by once-through cooling for in-basin conversion. Current conditions and a variety of possible changes in the water resources of the basin resulting from coal-resource development were assessed. Basin population may increase by as much as threefold between 1975 and 1990. Volumes of wastes requiring treatment will increase accordingly. Potential problems associated with ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in the Yampa River downstream from Steamboat Springs were evaluated using a waste-load assimilative-capacity model. Changes in sediment loads carried by streams due to increased coal mining and construction of roads and buildings may be apparent only locally; projected increases in sediment loads relative to historic loads from the basin are estimated to be 2 to 7 percent. Solid-waste residuals generated by coal-conversion processes and disposed of into old mine pits may cause widely dispersed ground-water contamination, based on simulation-modeling results. Projected increases in year-round water use will probably result in the construction of several proposed reservoirs. Current seasonal patterns of streamflow and of dissolvedsolids concentrations in streamflow will be altered appreciably by these reservoirs. Decreases in time-weighted mean-annual dissolved-solids concentrations of as much as 34 percent are anticipated, based upon model simulations of several configurations of proposed reservoirs. Detailed statistical analyses of water-quality conditions in the Yampa River basin were made. Regionalized maximum waterquality concentrations were estimated for possible comparison with future conditions. Using Landsat imagery and aerial photographs, potential remote-sensing applications were evaluated to monitor land-use changes and to assess both snow cover and turbidity levels in streams. The technical information provided by the several studies of the Yampa River basin assessment should be useful to regional planners and resource managers in evaluating the possible impacts of development on the basin's water resources.

Colorado, Wyoming↗
USGS2021

System characterization report on Resourcesat-2 Linear Imaging Self Scanning-3 (LISS–3) sensor

Executive Summary This report addresses system characterization of the Indian Space Research Organisation Resourcesat-2 Linear Imaging Self Scanning-3 (LISS–3) sensor and is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence in 2021. These reports present and detail the methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the specific sensing system being evaluated; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. Resourcesat-2 is a medium-resolution satellite launched in 2011 on the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle-C16 launch vehicle. Resourcesat-2 carries the same sensing elements as Resourcesat-1 (launched in October 2003) and provides continuity for the mission. The objectives of the Resourcesat mission are to provide remote sensing data services to global users, focusing on data for integrated land and water resources management. Resourcesat-2A is identical to Resourcesat-2 and was launched in 2016 on the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle-C36 launch vehicle for continuity of data and improved temporal resolution. The two satellites operating in tandem improved the revisit capability from 5 days to 2–3 days. The Resourcesat-2 platform is of Indian Remote Sensing Satellites-1C/1D–P3 heritage and was built by the Indian Space Research Organisation. Resourcesat-2 and Resourcesat-2A carry the Advanced Wide Field Sensor and LISS–3, as well as the Linear Imaging Self Scanning-4 for medium-resolution imaging. More information on Indian Space Research Organisation satellites and sensors is available in the “2020 Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation—Remote Sensing Satellite Compendium” and from the manufacturer at https://www.isro.gov.in/ . The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence system characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (interior and exterior), radiometric, and spatial performances. Results of these analyses indicate that LISS–3 has an interior geometric performance in the range of −4.620 (−0.154 pixel) to 13.230 meters (m; 0.441 pixel) in easting and −12.360 (−0.412 pixel) to 1.500 m (0.050 pixel) in northing in band-to-band registration, an exterior geometric error of −27.805 (−0.927 pixel) to 26.578 m (0.886 pixel) in easting and −35.341 (−1.178 pixel) to −6.286 m (−0.210 pixel) in northing offset in comparison to the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager, a radiometric performance in the range of −0.096 to 0.036 in offset and 0.585–0.946 in slope, and a spatial performance in the range of 1.87–1.95 pixels for full width at half maximum, with a modulation transfer function at a Nyquist frequency in the range of 0.045–0.070.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9

The mission of the Water Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to provide the information and understanding needed for wise management of the Nation's water resources. Inherent in this mission is the responsibility to collect data that accurately describe the physical, chemical, and biological attributes of water systems. These data are used for environmental and resource assessments by the USGS, other government agenices and scientific organizations, and the general public. Reliable and quality-assured data are essential to the credibility and impartiality of the water-resources appraisals carried out by the USGS. The development and use of a National Field Manual is necessary to achieve consistency in the scientific methods and procedures used, to document those methods and procedures, and to maintain technical expertise. USGS field personnel use this manual to ensure that the data collected are of the quality required to fulfill our mission.

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations↗
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↗
USGS2006

Structure and Velocities of the Northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains and the Western Santa Clara Valley, California, from the SCSI-LR Seismic Survey

Introduction: The Santa Clara Valley is located in the southern San Francisco Bay area of California and generally includes the area south of the San Francisco Bay between the Santa Cruz Mountains on the southwest and the Diablo Ranges on the northeast. The area has a population of approximately 1.7 million including the city of San Jose, numerous smaller cities, and much of the high-technology manufacturing and research area commonly referred to as the Silicon Valley. Major active strands of the San Andreas Fault system bound the Santa Clara Valley, including the San Andreas fault to the southwest and the Hayward and Calaveras faults to the northeast; related faults likely underlie the alluvium of the valley. This report focuses on subsurface structures of the western Santa Clara Valley and the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains and their potential effects on earthquake hazards and ground-water resource management in the area. Earthquake hazards and ground-water resources in the Santa Clara Valley are important considerations to California and the Nation because of the valley's preeminence as a major technical and industrial center, proximity to major earthquakes faults, and large population. To assess the earthquake hazards of the Santa Clara Valley better, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has undertaken a program to evaluate potential earthquake sources and potential effects of strong ground shaking within the valley. As part of that program, and to better assess water resources of the valley, the USGS and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) began conducting collaborative studies to characterize the faults, stratigraphy, and structures beneath the alluvial cover of the Santa Clara Valley in the year 2000. Such geologic features are important to both agencies because they directly influence the availability and management of groundwater resources in the valley, and they affect the severity and distribution of strong shaking from local or regional earthquakes sources. As one component of these joint studies, the U. S. Geological Survey acquired more than 28 km of combined seismic reflection/refraction data from the Santa Cruz Mountains to the central Santa Clara Valley in December 2000. The seismic investigation included both high-resolution (~5-m shot and sensor spacing) and relatively lower-resolution (~50-m sensor) seismic surveys from the central Santa Cruz Mountains to the central part of the valley. Collectively, we refer to these seismic investigations as the 2000 western Santa Clara Seismic Investigations (SCSI).

Open-File Report↗
USGS1967

Ground-water resources of northern Juab Valley, Utah

This report gives the results of an investigation of the ground-water resources of northern Juab Valley, Utah, that was carried out between June 1964 and July 1966, by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah State Engineer. The study was made in order to provide water users, administrators, and other interested parties with information on the character and extent of the water-bearing formations and the origin, quantity, movement, availability, chemical quality, and use of ground water in the valley.

Utah↗
USGS1998

Quality-Assurance/Quality-Control Manual for Collection and Analysis of Water-Quality Data in the Ohio District, US Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division (WRD), requires that quality-assurance/quality-control (QA/QC) activities be included in any sampling and analysis program. Operational QA/QC procedures address local needs while incorporating national policies. Therefore, specific technical policies were established for all activities associated with water-quality project being done by the Ohio District. The policies described in this report provide Ohio District personnel, cooperating agencies, and others with a reference manual on QA/QC procedures that are followed in collecitng and analyzing water-quality samples and reporting water-quality information in the Ohio District. The project chief, project support staff, District Water-Quality Specialist, and District Laboratory Coordinator are all involved in planning and implementing QA/QC activities at the district level. The District Chief and other district-level managers provide oversight, and the Regional Water-Quality Specialist, Office of Water Quality (USGS headquarters), and the Branch of Quality Systems within the Office of Water Quality create national QA/QC polices and provide assistance to District personnel. In the literature, the quality of all measurement data is expressed in terms of precision, variability, bias, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and comparability. In the Ohio District, bias and variability will be used to describe quality-control data generated from samples in the field and laboratory. Each project chief must plan for implementation and financing of QA/QC activities necessary to achieve data-quality objectives. At least 15 percent of the total project effort must be directed toward QA/QC activities. Of this total, 5-10 percent will be used for collection and analysis of quality-control samples. This is an absolute minimum, and more may be required based on project objectives. Proper techniques must be followed in the collection and processing of surface-water, ground-water, biological, precipitation, bed-sediment, bedload, suspended-sediment, and solid-phase samples. These techniques are briefly described in this report and are extensively documented. The reference documents listed in this report will be kept by the District librarian and District Water-Quality Specialist and updated regularly so that they are available to all District staff. Proper handling and documentation before, during, and after field activities are essential to ensure the integrity of the sample and to correct erroneous reporting of data results. Field sites are to be properly identified and entered into the data base before field data-collection activities begin. During field activities, field notes are to be completed and sample bottles appropriately labeled a nd stored. After field activities, all paperwork is to be completed promptly and samples transferred to the laboratory within allowable holding times. All equipment used by District personnel for the collection and processing of water-quality samples is to be properly operated, maintained, and calibrated by project personnel. This includes equipment for onsite measurement of water-quality characteristics (temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, acidity, and turbidity) and equipment and instruments used for biological sampling. The District Water-Quality Specialist and District Laboratory Coordinator are responsible for preventive maintenance and calibration of equipment in the Ohio District laboratory. The USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Arvada, Colo., is the primary source of analytical services for most project work done by the Ohio District. Analyses done at the Ohio District laboratory are usually those that must be completed within a few hours of sample collection. Contract laboratories or other USGS laboratories are sometimes used instead of the NWQL or the Ohio District laboratory. When a contract laboratory is used, the projec

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

Second Integrated Hydro-Terrestrial Modeling (IHTM 2.0) workshop: USGCRP federal agency perspectives

U.S. federal leadership, mobilizing close interagency coordination across sectors, is key to tackling compound climate and human impacts on our nation’s water resources. Recognizing this need, federal agencies and academic collaborators conducted a series of workshops to advance Integrated Hydro-Terrestrial Modeling (IHTM). IHTM is focused on supporting a multiscale framework to accelerate research insights, better integrate operational and planning perspectives, and bridge national-to-regional capabilities to address major interdependent societal water challenges. This framework leverages the capabilities of different agencies and institutional partners across sectors to advance a shared vision for use-inspired modeling and open science. The IHTM conceptual framework has developed over several community workshops in recent years: ● In September 2019, a community coordinating group on IHTM hosted an interagency workshop (“IHTM 1.0”) with support from NSF, DOE, and USGS. The resulting report identified the need for agencies to invest resources in designing pilot use cases, setting the stage for an integrated national IHTM capability. ● In November 2020, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) held a virtual Coastal-IHTM (C-IHTM) workshop in collaboration with the MultiSector Dynamics Community of Practice, which engages researchers across universities and national labs. Building on IHTM 1.0, this workshop aimed to identify coastal modeling capabilities and appropriate coastal applications of the IHTM framework. The workshop report detailed needs for open science, geographical or topical use cases, integrated modeling frameworks, and linking communities of practice. ● From October 31 to November 2, 2023, USGCRP hosted a hybrid IHTM 2.0 community workshop that brought together 160 scientists and managers from nine federal departments/agencies (DHS-FEMA, DOC-NOAA, DoD-USACE, DOE, DOI [U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), USGS], EPA, NASA, NSF, USDA [ARS, FS, NRCS]) and 32 non-federal academic, non-profit, and private institutions and consortiums. The workshop was organized by a federal Interagency Steering Committee with representatives from DOE, USGS, NSF, NASA, and NOAA, as well as a Scientific Organizing Committee comprising experts from academia and additional federal agency technical experts. The IHTM 2.0 workshop focused on moving the IHTM 1.0 concepts to action by making advances in designing national and regional integrated modeling experiments in five geographic testbeds. These modeling testbeds seek to facilitate collaborative water resources research and assessment that responds to societal needs, extending from basic research to resource management operations, including the assessment of water quantity, quality, and use at national and regional scales. Ultimately, we envision that the IHTM testbeds will improve our ability to provide water resources assessment scenarios to decision-makers and the public. This document summarizes USGCRP and member agencies’ perspectives of the IHTM 2.0 workshop. Sections 2 and 3 build on the work of the IHTM 2.0 workshop Scientific Organizing Committee to outline the importance of IHTM, summarize the workshop, and propose near- and medium-term IHTM priorities. Section 4 presents select ongoing and potential interagency activities that could help realize the IHTM 2.0 vision and align with three of USGCRP’s strategic goals for this decade: Advancing Science, Informing Decisions, and Engaging the Nation. Finally, Section 5 summarizes this report and offers information about how to connect with USGCRP’s IHTM activities. USGCRP and its member agencies are well-positioned to coordinate federal efforts to enhance IHTM capabilities in the coming years.

Conference Paper↗
USGS1981

Hydrologic reconnaissance of the southern Great Salt Lake Desert and summary of the hydrology of west-central Utah

This report is the last of 19 hydrologic reconnaissances of the basins in western Utah. The purposes of this series of studies are (1) to analyze available hydrologic data and describe the hydrologic system, (2) to evaluate existing and potential water-resources development, and (3) to identify additional studies that might be needed. Part 1 of this report gives an estimate of recharge and discharge, an estimate of the potential for water-resources development, and a statement on the quality of water in the southern Great Salt Lake Desert part of west-central Utah. Part 2 deals with the same aspects of west-central Utah as a whole. Part 2 also summarizes the evidence of interbasin ground-water flow in west-central Utah and presents a theory for the origin of the water discharged from Fish Springs.

Utah↗
USGS1983

Water-resources investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey in Kansas; fiscal years 1981 and 1982

One of the primary missions of the U.S. Geological Survey in Kansas is to investigate the occurrence, quantity, quality, distribution, and movement of surface and groundwater throughout the State. Primary activities include the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of hydrologic data, evaluation of water demands, and water-resources research. Hydrologic investigations are conducted through four basic types of projects: (1) data-collection programs, (2) local or areal investigations, (3) statewide or regional investigations, and (4) research projects. These projects are funded through cooperative agreements with State and local agencies, transfer of funds from other Federal agencies, and direct Federal funds. Forty-two water-related projects were funded during fiscal years 1981 and 1982 in Kansas. This report describes for each of these water-resources investigations the problem that initiated the study, the objectives of the project, and the approach designed to achieve this objective. Information on data-collection stations in Kansas is presented in maps and tables. A list of reports approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey, its cooperators, or technical and scientific organizations during fiscal years 1981 and 1982 is also provided. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗
USGS1982

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency: Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee

In December 1967, Bulletin No. 15, "A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies," was issued by the Hydrology Committee of the Water Resources Council. The report recommended use of the Pearson Type III distribution with log transformation of the data (log-Pearson Type III distribution) as a base method for flood flow frequency studies. As pointed out in that report, further studies were needed covering various aspects of flow frequency determinations. In March 1976, Bulletin 17, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency" was issued by the Water Resources Council. The guide was an extension and update of Bulletin No. 15. It provided a more complete guide for flood flow frequency analysis incorporating currently accepted technical methods with sufficient detail to promote uniform application. It was limited to defining flood potentials in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability at locations where a systematic record of peak flood flows is available. The recommended set of procedures was selected from those used or described in the literature prior to 1976, based on studies conducted for this purpose at the Center for Research in Water Resources of the University of Texas at Austin (summarized in Appendix 14) and on studies by the Work Group on Flood Flow Frequency. The "Guidelines" were revised and reissued in June 1977 as Bulletin 17A. Bulletin 17B is the latest effort to improve and expand upon the earlier publications. Bulletin 17B provides revised procedures for weighting a station skew value with the results from a generalized skew study, detecting and treating outliers, making two station comparisons, and computing confidence limits about a frequency curve. The Work Group that prepared this revision did not address the suitability of the original distribution or the generalized skew map. Major problems are encountered when developing guides for flood flow frequency determinations. There is no procedure or set of procedures that can be adopted which, when rigidly applied to the available data, will accurately define the flood potential of any given watershed. Statistical analysis alone will not resolve all flood frequency problems. As discussed in subsequent sections of this guide, elements of risk and uncertainty are inherent in any flood frequency analysis. User decisions must be based on properly applied procedures and proper interpretation of results considering risk and uncertainty. Therefore, the judgment of a professional experienced in hydrologic analysis will enhance the usefulness of a flood frequency analysis and promote appropriate application. It is possible to standarize many elements of flood frequency analysis. This guide describes each major element of the process of defining the flood potential at a specific location in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability. Use is confined to stations where available records are adequate to warrant statistical analysis of the data. Special situations may require other approaches. In those cases where the procedures of this guide are not followed, deviations must be supported by appropriate study and accompanied by a comparison of results using the recommended procedures. As a further means of achieving consistency and improving results, the Work Group recommends that studies be coordinated when more than one analyst is working currently on data for the same location. This recommendation holds particularly when defining exceedance probabilities for rare events, where this guide allows more latitude. Flood records are limited. As more years of record become available at each location, the determination of flood potential may change. Thus, an estimate may be outdated a few years after it is made. Additional flood data alone may be sufficient reason for a fresh assessment of the flood potential. When making a new assessment, the analyst should incorporate in his study a review of earlier estimates. Where differences appear, they should be acknowledged and explained.

Bulletin↗
USGS2004

Summary and Synthesis of Mercury Studies in the Cache Creek Watershed, California, 2000-01

This report summarizes the principal findings of the Cache Creek, California, components of a project funded by the CALFED Bay?Delta Program entitled 'An Assessment of Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Mercury in the Bay?Delta Watershed.' A companion report summarizes the key findings of other components of the project based in the San Francisco Bay and the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. These summary documents present the more important findings of the various studies in a format intended for a wide audience. For more in-depth, scientific presentation and discussion of the research, a series of detailed technical reports of the integrated mercury studies is available at the following website: .

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2018

Assessment of oil and gas resources in the Upper Jurassic Haynesville and Bossier Formations, U.S. Gulf Coast, 2016

The U.S. Geological Survey completed a geology-based assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in the Haynesville and Bossier Formations of the onshore and State waters portion of the U.S. Gulf Coast region. Haynesville Formation conventional oil and gas production began in the late 1930s, whereas Bossier Formation production began in the early 1970s. Production of continuous gas resources from both formations began in 2006–7. Most of the current activity is focused on natural gas production from Haynesville and Bossier shales using horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing. In 2016, t he U.S. Geological Survey assessed technically recoverable mean resources of 4 billion barrels of oil and 304.4 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Haynesville and Bossier Formations of the onshore and State waters portion of the U.S. Gulf Coast region.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Hydrologic modeling for flow-ecology science in the Southeastern United States and Puerto Rico

An understanding of the applicability and utility of hydrologic models is critical to support the effective management of water resources throughout the Southeastern United States (SEUS) and Puerto Rico (PR). Hydrologic models have the capacity to provide an estimate of the quantity of available water at ungauged locations (i.e., areas of the country where a U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] continuous record gauge is not installed) and provide the baseline flow information necessary to develop the linkages between water availability and characteristics of streamflow that support ecological communities (i.e., support the development of flow-ecology response models). This report inventories and then directly examines and compares a subset of hydrologic models used to estimate streamflow at a number of gauged basins across the SEUS and PR. This effort was designed to evaluate, quantify, and compare the magnitude of error and to investigate the potential causes of error associated with predicted streamflows from seven hydrologic models of varying complexity and calibration strategy. This was accomplished by computing and then comparing classical hydrologic model fit statistics (e.g., mean bias, coefficient of determination [R2], root mean squared error [RMSE], Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency [NSE]) and understanding the bias in the prediction in these and a subset of ecologically relevant flow metrics (ERFMs). Additionally, streamflow predictions from a larger regional-scale hydrologic model were compared to those of several fine-scale hydrologic models under a range of hypothetical climate change scenarios to determine the range of predicted streamflow responses to fixed climate perturbations. A pilot study was conducted using predicted streamflow and boosted regression trees to develop a set of predictive flow-ecology response models to assess the potential change in fish species richness in the North Carolina Piedmont under several scenarios of water availability change. This report is intended to provide a general assessment of all the tools and techniques available to support hydrologic modeling for flow-ecology science in the SEUS and PR. It is our hope that the approach used herein to understand differences in streamflow predictions among a subset of hydrologic models that have been applied in the SEUS for developing flow-ecology response models will provide water resource managers and stakeholders with an informed pathway for developing the capacity to link streamflow and ecological response and an understanding of some of the limitations associated with these type of modeling efforts.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Caro↗