Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Developments in Water Science”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2005

Method of analysis at the U.S. Geological Survey California Water Science Center, Sacramento Laboratory - determination of haloacetic acid formation potential, method validation, and quality-control practices

An analytical method for the determination of haloacetic acid formation potential of water samples has been developed by the U.S. Geological Survey California Water Science Center Sacramento Laboratory. The haloacetic acid formation potential is measured by dosing water samples with chlorine under specified conditions of pH, temperature, incubation time, darkness, and residual-free chlorine. The haloacetic acids formed are bromochloroacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, dibromochloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid, and trichloroacetic acid. They are extracted, methylated, and then analyzed using a gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector. Method validation experiments were performed to determine the method accuracy, precision, and detection limit for each of the compounds. Method detection limits for these nine haloacetic acids ranged from 0.11 to 0.45 microgram per liter. Quality-control practices include the use of blanks, quality-control samples, calibration verification standards, surrogate recovery, internal standard, matrix spikes, and duplicates.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2024

Conceptual hydrogeologic framework and groundwater budget near the southeastern part of Puget Sound, Washington

More than 1 million people live within the active model area (AMA) in the southeastern part of the lowlands surrounding Puget Sound, or Puget Lowland, Washington, and groundwater is the source for approximately one-half of their public, domestic, and irrigation water demands. The 887-square-mile AMA, located in King and Pierce Counties, represents the area of analysis for the conceptual hydrogeologic framework and numerical groundwater-flow models within the study area and includes the Puyallup River and Chambers-Clover Creek watersheds. To assess the potential hydrologic and anthropogenic impacts to groundwater and the connected surface-water resources, conceptual and numerical groundwater-flow models of groundwater flow were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center in close cooperation with 18 water-resource agencies and stakeholders. This report presents information used to characterize the groundwater-flow system and the development of a numerical model in the AMA. Included are descriptions of the geology and conceptual hydrogeologic framework, groundwater levels and flow directions, groundwater recharge and discharge, numerical groundwater-flow model construction and results, and model limitations. The study area encompasses the western part of Pierce County and the southwestern part of King County, Washington. The study area extends south to the Nisqually River, southwest to Tanwax Creek, northeast to the Green River, and north through the valley near Auburn and adjacent uplands. It is bounded on the east by foothills of the Cascade Range, and on the northwest by Puget Sound.

Washington↗
USGS2015

Documentation of a restart option for the U.S. Geological Survey coupled Groundwater and Surface-Water Flow (GSFLOW) model

A new option to write and read antecedent conditions (also referred to as initial conditions) has been developed for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater and Surface-Water Flow (GSFLOW) numerical, hydrologic simulation code. GSFLOW is an integration of the USGS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and USGS Modular Groundwater-Flow Model (MODFLOW), and provides three simulation modes: MODFLOW-only, PRMS-only, and GSFLOW (or coupled). The new capability, referred to as the restart option, can be used for all three simulation modes, such that the results from a pair (or set) of spin-up and restart simulations are nearly identical to results produced from a continuous simulation for the same time period. The restart option writes all results to files at the end of a spin-up simulation that are required to initialize a subsequent restart simulation. Previous versions of GSFLOW have had some capability to save model results for use as antecedent condiitions in subsequent simulations; however, the existing capabilities were not comprehensive or easy to use. The new restart option supersedes the previous methods. The restart option was developed in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service as part of the Integrated Water Resources Science and Services Partnership. The primary focus for the development of the restart option was to support medium-range (7- to 14-day) forecasts of low streamflow conditions made by the National Weather Service for critical water-supply basins in which groundwater plays an important role. The spin-up simulation should be run for a sufficient length of time necessary to establish antecedent conditions throughout a model domain. Each GSFLOW application can require different lengths of time to account for the hydrologic stresses to propagate through a coupled groundwater and surface-water system. Typically, groundwater hydrologic processes require many years to come into equilibrium with dynamic climate and other forcing (or stress) data, such as precipitation and well pumping, whereas runoff-dominated surface-water processes respond relatively quickly. Use of a spin-up simulation can substantially reduce execution-time requirements for applications where the time period of interest is small compared to the time for hydrologic memory; thus, use of the restart option can be an efficient strategy for forecast and calibration simulations that require multiple simulations starting from the same day.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2001

Science Plan, U.S. Geological Survey Florida District

This Science Plan has been prepared by the Florida District of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as a tool to provide direction for the scientific work to be accomplished in the District during the next 5-10 years. A Science Plan can serve as a guide to determine the optimum use of the limited financial resources of the USGS in Florida to address water resource issues. The Florida District has four primary operational centers geographically distributed across the State, in Tallahassee, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami, with a laboratory in Ocala and field offices in Jacksonville and Fort Myers. Other USGS discipline offices in Florida are located in Gainesville (biology), St. Petersburg (geology), and Miami (restoration ecology) (fig.1). Although some differences exist in programs among the four water-resource offices because of differing physiographic settings and information needs, many common elements are present and these common elements are the focus of this District Science Plan. Science Plan development was based on other planning documents including individual Science Plans prepared by personnel in each of the four primary Florida water resource offices, and strategic planning documents of the Southeastern Region, Water Resources Discipline (WRD), and the USGS. A broad cross-section of District staff, representing all primary offices, a number of different scientific disciplines, and different programs of the District (data collection, investigations, and research) collaborated on the development of this Science Plan. As part of the development process, input was solicited from staff in every office and considered for inclusion in the plan. The Science Plan will be evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure its continued relevancy to recognized water resources needs in Florida, and to guide future program development and collaboration with our existing and potential partners and customers, both within and outside the USGS.

Florida↗
USGS2016

Development of a decision support tool for water and resource management using biotic, abiotic, and hydrological assessments of Topock Marsh, Arizona

Topock Marsh is a large wetland adjacent to the Colorado River and the main feature of Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (Havasu NWR) in southern Arizona. In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Bureau of Reclamation began a project to improve water management capabilities at Topock Marsh and protect habitats and species. Initial construction required a drawdown, which caused below-average inflows and water depths in 2010–11. U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) scientists collected an assemblage of biotic, abiotic, and hydrologic data from Topock Marsh during the drawdown and immediately after, thus obtaining valuable information needed by FWS. Building upon that work, FORT developed a decision support system (DSS) to better understand ecosystem health and function of Topock Marsh under various hydrologic conditions. The DSS was developed using a spatially explicit geographic information system package of historical data, habitat indices, and analytical tools to synthesize outputs for hydrologic time periods. Deliverables include high-resolution orthorectified imagery of Topock Marsh; a DSS tool that can be used by Havasu NWR to compare habitat availability associated with three hydrologic scenarios (dry, average, wet years); and this final report which details study results. This project, therefore, has addressed critical FWS management questions by integrating ecologic and hydrologic information into a DSS framework. This DSS will assist refuge management to make better informed decisions about refuge operations and better understand the ecological results of those decisions by providing tools to identify the effects of water operations on species-specific habitat and ecological processes. While this approach was developed to help FWS use the best available science to determine more effective water management strategies at Havasu NWR, technologies used in this study could be applied elsewhere within the region.

Arizona↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey water science strategy—Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that began with the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). This report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Science Strategy is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences. The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 134-year history.

Circular↗
USGS2016

Advancing environmental flow science: Developing frameworks for altered landscapes and integrating efforts across disciplines.

Environmental flows represent a legal mechanism to balance existing and future water uses and sustain non-use values. Here, we identify current challenges, provide examples where they are important, and suggest research advances that would benefit environmental flow science. Specifically, environmental flow science would benefit by (1) developing approaches to address streamflow needs in highly modified landscapes where historic flows do not provide reasonable comparisons, (2) integrating water quality needs where interactions are apparent with quantity but not necessarily the proximate factor of the ecological degradation, especially as frequency and magnitudes of inflows to bays and estuaries, (3) providing a better understanding of the ecological needs of native species to offset the often unintended consequences of benefiting non-native species or their impact on flows, (4) improving our understanding of the non-use economic value to balance consumptive economic values, and (5) increasing our understanding of the stakeholder socioeconomic spatial distribution of attitudes and perceptions across the landscape. Environmental flow science is still an emerging interdisciplinary field and by integrating socioeconomic disciplines and developing new frameworks to accommodate our altered landscapes, we should help advance environmental flow science and likely increase successful implementation of flow standards.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2019

Improved automated detection of subpixel-scale inundation – Revised Dynamic Surface Water Extent (DSWE) partial surface water tests

In order to produce useful hydrologic and aquatic habitat data from the Landsat system, the U.S. Geological Survey has developed the “Dynamic Surface Water Extent” (DSWE) Landsat Science Product. DSWE will provide long-term, high-temporal resolution data on variations in inundation extent. The model used to generate DSWE is composed of five decision-rule based tests that do not require scene-based training. To allow its general application, required inputs are limited to the Landsat at-surface reflectance product and a digital elevation model. Unlike other Landsat-based water products, DSWE includes pixels that are only partially covered by water to increase inundation dynamics information content. Previously published DSWE model development included one wetland-focused test developed through visual inspection of field-collected Everglades spectra. A comparison of that test’s output against Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) in situ data confirmed the expectation that omission errors were a prime source of inaccuracy in vegetated environments. Further evaluation exposed a tendency toward commission error in coniferous forests. Improvements to the subpixel level “partial surface water” (PSW) component of DSWE was the focus of this research. Spectral mixture models were created from a variety of laboratory and image-derived endmembers. Based on the mixture modeling, a more “aggressive” PSW rule improved accuracy in herbaceous wetlands and reduced errors of commission elsewhere, while a second “conservative” test provides an alternative when commission errors must be minimized. Replication of the EDEN-based experiments using the revised PSW tests yielded a statistically significant increase in mean overall agreement (4%, p = 0.01, n = 50) and a statistically significant decrease (11%, p = 0.009, n = 50) in mean errors of omission. Because the developed spectral mixture models included image-derived vegetation endmembers and laboratory spectra for soil groups found across the US, simulations suggest where the revised DSWE PSW tests perform as they do in the Everglades and where they may prove problematic. Visual comparison of DSWE outputs with an unusual variety of coincidently collected images for locations spread throughout the US support conclusions drawn from Everglades quantitative analyses and highlight DSWE PSW component strengths and weaknesses.

Remote Sensing↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2024

Inset groundwater-flow models for the Cache and Grand Prairie Critical Groundwater Areas, northeastern Arkansas

The water resources in the Mississippi alluvial plain, located in parts of Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, supports a multibillion-dollar agricultural industry that relies heavily on pumping of groundwater for irrigation of crops and aquaculture. The primary source of groundwater for agricultural-related pumping is the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer, which has declined in storage for decades; secondary groundwater sources include the middle Claiborne aquifer and Wilcox aquifer system. Two areas in northeastern Arkansas that lie within the Mississippi alluvial plain, part of the Cache and Grand Prairie regions, have been designated as Critical Groundwater Areas owing to decades of groundwater declines that resulted from past and current water use. The multidisciplinary Mississippi Alluvial Plain project, led by the U.S. Geological Survey, and funded by their Water Availability and Use Science Program, included objectives to develop numerical groundwater models in focus regions, including the part of the Cache and Grand Prairie regions of northeastern Arkansas. Two inset models were developed using the child model capabilities of MODFLOW 6, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Modular Hydrologic Model simulation software. Both models, called the Cache model and Grand Prairie model, simulated the groundwater system and surface-water/groundwater interactions for the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and underlying Tertiary-age aquifers and confining units to the Midway confining unit. Each model was spatially discretized into 500-meter x 500-meter orthogonal cells on a grid with 5-meter constant-thickness vertical layers that represented the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer and increasing thickness layers for the aquifers and confining units below the alluvial aquifer. The Cache and Grand Prairie models were calibrated with the PEST++ iterative ensemble smoother Version 5 and employed high dimensional parameterization schemes of 13,740 and 30,436 parameters, respectively. The Cache mean absolute residual for groundwater-level observations within each model domain for the priority well was 1.58 meters. Grand Prairie mean absolute residuals for the alluvial aquifer and middle Claiborne aquifer groundwater-level observations were 2.71 and 10.78 meters, respectively. The groundwater budgets for the Cache and Grand Prairie models were characterized by substantial outflows to irrigation wells, which constituted about 52 and 54 percent of all outflows, with the primary source of water to those wells being releases from unconfined aquifer storage.

Arkansas↗
USGS2007

A Water Census of the United States

In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed a science strategy outlining the major natural science issues facing the Nation in the next decade. The science strategy consists of six science directions of critical importance, focusing on areas where natural science can make a substantial contribution to the well-being of the Nation and the world. This fact sheet focuses on the development of a water census of the United States, and how USGS research can strengthen the Nation with information needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2021

Procedures for field data collection, processing, quality assurance and quality control, and archiving of relative- and absolute-gravity surveys

Repeat microgravity surveys carried out using relative- and absolute-gravity meters are useful for identifying changes in subsurface mass, such as the volume of water stored in an aquifer. These surveys require careful field procedures to achieve the part-per-billion accuracy required to measure the small changes in gravity relevant for hydrologic studies. This chapter describes techniques and methods for carrying out gravity surveys, requirements for assuring high-quality survey results, and data processing and archival procedures. The focus is on acquiring and documenting repeat gravity surveys for monitoring changes in groundwater storage. Similar gravity surveys may be completed to evaluate other causes of mass change, such as those caused by magma movement below volcanoes. The methods are also useful for one-time surveys that map spatial gravity variations associated with geologic structures such as faults or sedimentary basins. Repeat microgravity surveys can be carried out using relative-gravity meters, absolute-gravity meters, or both. Specific locations, known as gravity stations, are visited during each survey. Most commonly, absolute- and relative-gravity are combined using the least-squares method of network adjustment, much like benchmark elevations and relative-height differences in a leveling network. This chapter primarily describes the use of the A-10 absolute-gravity meter manufactured by Micro-g LaCoste, Inc., and relative-gravity meters made by LaCoste & Romberg (no longer in production) and ZLS Corporation, Inc. Field and office procedures are similar for other instruments such as the FG-5 absolute-gravity meter and Scintrex relative-gravity meters, but some adaptation may be required. Quality control for absolute-gravity data focuses primarily on proper field procedures and maintaining the time and distance calibration of the instrument. Quality control for relative-gravity surveys requires careful field procedures, an understanding of how the meter is behaving while in the field, and appropriate postprocessing. The techniques and methods described in this chapter were developed over 30 years at the USGS Arizona Water Science Center and the Southwest Gravity Program and are the basis for many studies on groundwater-storage change and geologic structure. A description of the Program and complete bibliography is available at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/az-water/science/azwsc-capabilities-hydrologic-gravity-monitoring .

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2019

Water priorities for the nation—The U.S. Geological Survey next generation water observing system

The challenges of providing safe and sustainable water supplies for human and ecological uses and protecting lives and property during water emergencies are well recognized. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) plays an essential role in meeting these challenges through its observational networks and renowned water science and research activities (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Substantial advances in water science, together with emerging breakthroughs in technical and computational capabilities, have led the USGS to develop a Next Generation Water Observing System (NGWOS) . The NGWOS will provide real-time data on water quantity and quality in more affordable and rapid ways than previously possible, and in more locations. The data will be served through a modernized USGS National Water Information System that will be coupled to advanced modeling tools to inform daily water operations, decision-making during water emergencies (like floods, droughts, and contaminant spills), assessments of past trends in water quantity and quality, and forecasts of future water availability.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2025

Collaborative drought science planning in the Colorado River Basin

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is using collaborative, interdisciplinary planning to develop data and tools needed to optimize the management of water resources and land use by resource management agencies during an ongoing, multidecadal drought in the Colorado River Basin. The USGS Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology team works to build relationships with resource management agencies and other stakeholders who can benefit from the use of USGS data and products. In 2023, the Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology team hosted a series of collaborative workshops to bring together representatives of resource management agencies and other stakeholders (any person or entity with interests in a resource or location) with USGS program managers, scientists, and multidisciplinary subject matter experts to codevelop concepts for interdisciplinary drought science and technology projects to address pressing needs related to drought in the Colorado River Basin. Workshop participants identified current and recent scientific data that could be shared through a centralized online data portal. Workshop participants also identified drought science and technology needs and developed project concepts to address those science needs. Participants categorized project concepts based on their potential to develop short-, mid-, and long-term drought science data and tools, provide for the spatial or temporal expansion of ongoing USGS science projects, and address high-priority science needs. Participants developed nine project concepts: (1) understanding shifting ecohydrologic baselines, (2) San Juan River Basin synthesis, (3) incorporating dynamic land cover into hydrologic models, (4) aridification compared to drought, (5) surface water-groundwater interactions, (6) cascading effects of drought on dust, (7) cascading effects of drought on water availability, (8) cascading effects of drought on socioeconomic factors, and (9) the value of water in the Colorado River Basin. This report provides an overview of the 2023 Codesign Workshop Series, synthesized outcomes from workshop materials and discussions, and science project concepts that emerged from the collaborative meetings that will continue to be refined into science project proposals through codevelopment processes. This report also highlights lessons learned and next steps needed to receive feedback and testing of the USGS Science Collaboration Portal, continue collaboration to develop detailed specifics and steps for short-term wins, develop interdisciplinary project proposals, and implement science planning and studies.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2015

Hydrology: The interdisciplinary science of water

We live in a world where biophysical and social processes are tightly coupled. Hydrologic systems change in response to a variety of natural and human forces such as climate variability and change, water use and water infrastructure, and land cover change. In turn, changes in hydrologic systems impact socioeconomic, ecological, and climate systems at a number of scales, leading to a coevolution of these interlinked systems. The Harvard Water Program, Hydrosociology, Integrated Water Resources Management, Ecohydrology, Hydromorphology, and Sociohydrology were all introduced to provide distinct, interdisciplinary perspectives on water problems to address the contemporary dynamics of human interaction with the hydrosphere and the evolution of the Earth’s hydrologic systems. Each of them addresses scientific, social, and engineering challenges related to how humans influence water systems and vice versa. There are now numerous examples in the literature of how holistic approaches can provide a structure and vision of the future of hydrology. We review selected examples, which taken together, describe the type of theoretical and applied integrated hydrologic analyses and associated curricular content required to address the societal issue of water resources sustainability. We describe a modern interdisciplinary science of hydrology needed to develop an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the connectedness between human and natural systems and to determine effective solutions to resolve the complex water problems that the world faces today. Nearly, every theoretical hydrologic model introduced previously is in need of revision to accommodate how climate, land, vegetation, and socioeconomic factors interact, change, and evolve over time.

Water Resources Research↗
USGS2001

An interdisciplinary assessment of regional-scale nonpoint source ground-water vulnerability: Theory and application

An integrated earth science-economics model, developed within a geographic information system (GIS), combines a regional-scale nonpoint source vulnerability assessment with a specific remediation measure to avoid unnecessary agricultural production costs associated with the use of agrochemicals in the Pearl Harbor basin on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. This approach forms the core of a risk-based regulation for the application of agrochemicals and estimates the benefits of an information-based approach to decisionmaking.

Hawaii↗
USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2025

​​Integrated Hydro-terrestrial Modeling 2.0: Progress and path forward on building a national capability​

Growing societal pressures on U.S. water resources and the challenges inherent in understanding how future water risks may evolve are driving major investments to improve our knowledge of the integrated water cycle. This improved understanding as captured in innovations in our data, knowledge, and modeling capabilities, needs to be accelerated through better integration and coordination across scientific disciplines, programs, and U.S. agencies. The Integrated Hydro-Terrestrial Modeling (IHTM) community holds promise to accelerate the progress required to manage the U.S. water resources sustainably, equitably, and effectively. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates research on the impacts of global change on the water cycle through interagency collaboration. USGCRP agencies and their partners jointly held the IHTM 2.0 workshop for U.S. federal and non-federal scientists and managers in fall 2023, aiming to advance community modeling and integrated water resources management capabilities following open science principles. This workshop focused on developing both national and regional testbeds that employ state-of-the-art modeling approaches to explore gaps and opportunities for improving the representation and extensibility of hydrologic processes and modeling. Integrated regional testbeds in Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Colorado River Basin, and Gulf Coast/Mississippi regions were proposed to leverage existing investments and seek actionable collaboration on issues such as water extremes, water quality, water use, and urbanization. Collaborations focused on advancing iterative cycles of model development and testing offer a means for regional scale studies to inform national scale modeling applications and yield nationally consistent modeling frameworks that are also locally relevant. This presentation will highlight key takeaways, findings, and future directions for the IHTM community that have been laid out in the IHTM 2.0 workshop report.

Report↗