Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Investigator Annual 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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS1966

Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1965, Salt Lake County, Utah

An investigation of the water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, was undertaken by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in July 1963. This investigation is a cooperative project financed equally by the State of Utah and the Federal Government in accordance with an agreement between the State Engineer and the Geological Survey. The Utah Water and Power Board, Utah Fish and Game Commission, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Utah Power and Light Company, Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. contributed funds to the State Engineer's office toward support of the project. The investigation encompasses the collection and interpretation of a large variety of climatologic, hydrologic, and geologic data in and near Salt Lake County. Utah Basic-Data Release No. 11 contains data collected through 1964. This release contains climatologic and surface-water data for the 1965 water year (October 1964 to September 1965) and ground-water data collected during the 1965 calendar year. Similar annual releases will contain data collected during the remainder of the investigation, and interpretive reports will be prepared as the investigation proceeds. Organizations that furnished data are acknowledged in station descriptions and footnotes to tables.

Utah↗
USGS1967

Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1966, Salt Lake County, Utah

An investigation of the water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, was undertaken by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in July 1963. This investigation is a cooperative project financed equally by the State of Utah and the Federal Government in accordance with an agreement between the State Engineer and the Geological Survey. The Utah Water and Power Board, Utah Fish and Game Commission, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Utah Power and Light Company, Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District contributed funds to the State Engineer's office toward support of the project. The investigation encompasses the collection and interpretation of a large variety of climatologic, hydrologic, and geologic data in and near Salt Lake County. Utah Basic-Data Releases 11 and 12 contain data collected through 1965. This release contains climatologic and surface-water data for the 1966 water year (October 1965 to September 1966) and groundwater data collected during the 1966 calendar year. Similar annual releases will contain data collected during the remainder of the investigation, and interpretive reports will be prepared as the investigation proceeds. Organizations that furnished data are acknowledged in station descriptions and footnotes to tables.

Utah↗
USGS1972

Low-flow investigations

This manual describes methods of defining the low-flow characteristics of streams, shows how certain basin characteristics influence the mean and variability of annual low flows, and recommends procedures for data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations↗
USGS1976

Statistical summaries of Indiana streamflow data

Complete statistical analyses are presented in tabular form for all gaging stations in Indiana, regardless of length of record. Each station analysis includes lowest and highest mean daily discharges, flow duration, statistics on normal monthly means, statistics on normal annual means, statistics on log monthly means, statistics on log annual means, and annual peak discharges.

Indiana↗
USGS1977

Ground-water quality near a sewage-sludge recycling site and a landfill near Denver, Colorado

The Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District and the City and County of Denver operate a sewage-sludge recycling site and a landfill in an area about 15 miles (24 kilometers) east of Denver. The assessment of the effects of these facilities on the ground-water system included determining the direction of ground-water movement in the area, evaluating the impact of the wastedisposal activities on the chemical quality of local ground water, and evaluating the need for continued water-quality monitoring. Surficial geology of the area consists of two principal units: (1) Alluvium with a maximum thickness of about 25 feet (7.6 meters) deposited along stream channels, and (2) bedrock consisting of undifferentiated Denver and Dawson Formations. Ground water in formations less than 350 feet (110 meters) deep moves to the north, as does surface flow, while ground water in formations between 570 and 1,500 feet (170 and 460 meters) deep moves to the west. Estimates of ground-water velocity were made using assumed values for hydraulic conductivity and porosity, and the observed hydraulic gradient from the study area. Lateral velocities are estimated to be 380 feet (120 meters) per year in alluvium and 27 feet (8.2 meters) per year in the upper part of the bedrock formations. Vertical velocity is estimated to be 0.58 foot (0.18 meter) per year in the upper part of the bedrock formations. Potentiometric head decreases with depth in the bedrock formations indicating a potential for downward movement of ground water. However, waterquality analysis and the rate and direction of ground-water movement suggest that ground-water movement in the area is primarily in the lateral rather than the vertical direction. Five wells perforated in alluvium were found to have markedly degraded water quality. One well was located in the landfill and water that was analyzed was obtained from near the base of the buried refuse, two others were located downgradient and near sewage-sludge burial areas, and the remaining two are located near stagnant surface ponds. Concentrations of nitrate in wells downgradient from fields where sludge is plowed into the soil were higher than background concentrations due to the effects of the sludge disposal. No evidence of water-quality degradation was detected in deeper wells perforated in the bedrock formations. Continued water-quality monitoring is needed because of the continuing disposal of wastes. A suggested monitoring program would consist of monitoring wells near the landfill twice a year and monitoring wells near the sludge-disposal areas on an annual basis.

Colorado↗
USGS2022

Groundwater budgets for the Big Lost River Basin, south-central Idaho, 2000–19

The Big Lost River Basin, located in parts of Butte and Custer Counties in south-central Idaho, supports the communities surrounding the cities of Arco, Leslie, Mackay, and Moore and provides for agricultural resources that depend on a sustainable supply of surface water from the Big Lost River and its tributaries and groundwater from an unconfined aquifer. The aquifer, situated in a structurally controlled intermontane valley, is composed of unconsolidated alluvium, consolidated sedimentary and volcanic rocks, and younger interbedded volcanic rocks. This report presents two separate groundwater budgets for the aquifer, one above and one below Mackay Dam, as well as a combined groundwater budget for the aquifer within the entire Big Lost River Basin. The budgets span a 20-year period (2000–19), characterizing average conditions, a dry year (2014), and a wet year (2017). The groundwater budgets will help address questions regarding the availability of groundwater supply in the Big Lost River Basin and inform future groundwater modeling. The Idaho Geological Survey has prepared the groundwater budgets as part of a larger hydrogeologic investigation completed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Idaho Geological Survey in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources during 2018–21. Other reports describe the hydrogeologic framework and several streamflow-measurement events to evaluate gains and losses on the Big Lost River. Collectively, these reports provide an updated characterization of groundwater resources in the Big Lost River Basin which will help address water resources challenges. A groundwater budget is a conceptual and numerical accounting of inflow (recharge) to groundwater and outflow (discharge) from groundwater. The predominant sources of recharge to the aquifer include losing river reaches (33 percent), areal recharge (as precipitation less evapotranspiration and surface runoff, comprising about 23 percent of the total inflow), tributary canyon underflow from higher altitudes (20 percent), canal seepage (13 percent), recharge through applied irrigation on fields below the root zone and other minor sources (11 percent), and Mackay Reservoir seepage (less than 1 percent). The primary sources of discharge from the aquifer are groundwater pumpage to meet irrigation demand, domestic supply, and municipal supply (76 percent) and gaining river reaches (24 percent). The positive or negative difference between the sum of all inflows and outflows is regarded as the residual, representing the change in groundwater storage, groundwater outflow from the basin or subbasins, and uncertainty and errors in the budget. In the Big Lost River Basin, groundwater outflow is at the mouth of the basin below Arco into the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The total mean annual estimated recharge to the Big Lost River Basin was 439,100 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr; 607 cubic feet per second [ft 3 /s]) for 2000–19, 373,900 acre-ft/yr (516 ft 3 /s) in 2014, and 762,100 acre-ft/yr (1,053 ft 3 /s) in 2017. The mean annual estimated groundwater discharge from the aquifer was about 112,300 acre-ft/yr (155 ft 3 /s) for 2000–19, 153,500 acre-ft/yr (212 ft 3 /s) in 2014, and 53,400 acre-ft/yr (74 ft 3 /s) in 2017. The estimated mean annual groundwater residual was 326,800 acre-ft/yr (451 ft 3 /s) for 2000–19, 220,400 acre-ft/yr (304 ft 3 /s) in 2014, and 708,700 acre-ft/yr (979 ft 3 /s) in 2017. The mean annual residual above Mackay Dam was 100,400 acre-ft/yr (2000-19), 96,700 acre-ft (2014), and 248,300 acre-ft (2017). The mean annual residual contribution below Mackay Dam, minus any groundwater-flow above Mackay Dam, was 226,400 acre-ft/yr (2000-19), 123,700 acre-ft (2014), and 460,400 acre-ft (2017). These results are highly sensitive to assumptions about certain budget inflow parameters. In particular, the magnitude of the budget residuals during especially dry and wet periods is amplified by the groundwater-budget terms tributary streamflow and tributary underflow that contribute appreciable recharge but also have high uncertainty. The results of the groundwater-budget evaluation describe an interconnected and complex hydrologic response throughout the basin to various climatic and water-use trends. The part of the basin above Mackay Dam typically has a positive groundwater residual derived from snowmelt recharge to tributary canyons and areal recharge in excess of groundwater pumpage for irrigation demand. This supply is used to meet irrigation demand above Mackay Dam and to provide for water supply below Mackay Dam. On average, groundwater inflow from above Mackay Dam to below Mackay Dam, assuming negligible reservoir storage effects, accounts for about 25 percent of the total groundwater recharge below Mackay Dam. Considerable recharge to groundwater below Mackay Dam occurs through seepage from the Big Lost River and canals and ditches. Most groundwater discharge from the aquifer is through irrigation pumping. The water supply below Mackay Dam is highly dependent on available upstream surface-water flows, the magnitude of the groundwater residual from above Mackay Dam, and annual variability in local groundwater conditions.

Idaho↗
USGS1996

Statistical summaries of ground-water level data collected in the Suwannee River Water Management District, 1948 to 1994

Since 1948, ground-water level data have beensystematically collected from selected wells in theSuwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),the SRWMD, and other agencies. Records of waterlevels in the SRWMD (fig. 1), collected by the USGS and SRWMD through 1990, and by the SRWMD from 1990 to 1994, have been published for many years in the USGS annual report series "Water Resources Data for Florida." However, no systematic statistical summaries of water levels in the SRWMD have been previously published. The need for such statistical summary data forevaluations of drought severity, ground-water supplyavailability, and minimum water levels for regulatory purposes increases daily as demands for ground-water usage increase. Also, much of the base flow of the Suwannee River is dependent upon ground water. As the population and demand for ground water for drinking water and irrigation purposes increase, the ability to quickly and easily predict trends in ground-water availability will become paramount. In response to this need, the USGS, in cooperation with the SRWMD, compiled this report. Ground-water sta tistics for 136 sites are presented as well as figures showing water levels that were measured in wells from 1948 through September 1994. In 1994, the SRWMD and the USGS began a long- term program of cooperative studies designed tobetter understand minimum and maximum streamflows and ground-water levels in the SRWMD. Minimum and maximum flows and levels are needed by the district to manage the surface- and ground-water resources of the SRWMD and to maintain or improve the various ecosystems. Data evaluation was a necessary first step in the long- term SRWMD ground-water investigations program, because basic statistics for ground-water levels are not included in the USGS annual data reports such as "Water Resources Data for Florida, Water Year 1994" (Fran klin and others, 1995). Statistics included in this report were generated using the USGS computer pro gram ADAPS (Automatic Data Processing System) to characterize normal ground-water levels and depar tures from normal. The report has been organized so that the statisti cal analyses of water levels in the wells are presentedfollowing this introductory material, a description ofthe hydrogeology in the study area, and a description of the statistics used to present the water-level data. Specifically, the report presents statistical analyses for each well, as appropriate, in the following manner: Description of the well.Hydrographs of ground-water levels for the period of record, for the last 10 years of record, and for the last 5 years of record. Graphs of maximum, minimum, and mean of monthly mean ground-water levels for wells with 5 or more years of record.Frequency hydrographs (25, 50, and 75 percent) of monthly mean ground-water levels for wells with 5 or more years of record. Water-level data and statistical plots are grouped by county and sorted within the county by ascendingsite identification number. Well locations are plottedon county maps preceding the well descriptions andhydrographs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1968

Hydrogeologic data for the lower Thames and southeastern coastal river basins, Connecticut

This report presents hydrologic and geologic data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during an investigation of water resources in the lower Thames and southeastern coastal river basins in cooperation with the Connecticut Water Resources Commission. The report area occupies about 440 square miles in the southeastern part of the State; it includes about 5 square miles in southwestern Rhode Island. It includes the towns of Bozrah, Groton, Ledyard, Montville, New London, Stonington, and Waterford, and parts of Columbia, Colchester, East Lyme, Franklin, Lebanon, North Stonington, Norwich, Old Lyme, Preston, Salem, and Voluntown. A companion interpretive report, Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 15, (Thomas and others, in preparation), evaluates the water resources of the area. The data on the following pages serve to document and supplement that report and should be especially useful in planning the development of water resources at specific localities. Data were collected as part of this investigation from 1963 to 1965. Streamflow records from continuous~record gaging stations in the report area for this period have been published annually along with data from other parts of the State in a series of U.S. Geological Survey reports entitled "Surface Water Records of Connecticut." Water-level measurements in wells throughout the State from 1960 through 1966~ including those made as part of this investigations are published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 7 (Meikle and Baker~ 1965) and Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 13 (Melklee 1967). Most other data collected during this investigation are tabulated on the following pages. Included are some previously unpublished data collected prior to the start of this study. The locations of sites at which data were collected are shown on Plate A in the pocket at the back of the report. Plate A includes the locations of 42 miscellaneous sites where measurements of streamflow were made during 1963 and 1964 and 6 other sites where continuous records are maintained. Data for 25 of the 42 miscellaneous sites are included in this report: data for the remaining 17 miscellaneous sites and for 5 of the 6 continuous-record sites have already been published in "Surface Water Records of Connecticut." Streamflow records for Pawcatuck River at Westerly~ Rhode Island have been previously published in "Surface Water Records of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont." Data presented, unless otherwise noted, were collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel.

Connecticut↗
USGS1969

Hydrogeologic data for the southwestern coastal river basins, Connecticut

This report presents hydrologic and geologic data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during an investigation of water resources in the southwestern coastal river basins of Connecticut in cooperation with the Connecticut Water Resources Commission. These basins occupy about 394 square miles in Connecticut and 46 square miles in New York, including the towns of Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, Norwalk, Wilton, Westport, Weston, Fairfield, Easton, and Bridgeport and parts of Danbury, Ridgefield, Redding, Bethel, Newtown, Trumbull, Monroe, Shelton, and Stratford. A companion interpretive report evaluating the water resources of the basins will be published as Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 17. The data on the following pages serve to document and supplement that report and should be especially useful in planning the development of water resources at specific localities. Data were collected as part of this investigation during the period July 1963 through November 1966. Streamflow records from continuous-record gaging stations in the basins have been published annually along with data from other parts of the State in a series of U.S. Geological Survey reports entitled "Surface Water Records of Connecticut." Water-level measurements in wells throughout the State from 1960 through 1966, including most of those made as part of this investigation, are published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletins No. 7 and No. 13. Most other data collected during this investigation are tabulated on the following pages. Included are some well records and chemical analyses of water samples collected prior to July 1963 and not previously published. The locations of sites at which data were collected are shown on plate A in the pocket at the back of the report. Data presented, unless otherwise noted, were collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel.

Connecticut↗
USGS1998

Surface-water/ground-water relations in the Lemhi River Basin, east-central Idaho

This report summarizes work carried out in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation to provide hydrologic information to help Federal, State, and local agencies meet the goals of the Lemhi River Model Watershed Project. The primary goal of the project is to maintain, enhance, and restore anadromous and resident fish habitat in the Lemhi River, while maintaining a balance between resource protection and established water uses. The main objectives of the study were to carry out seepage measurements to determine seasonal distributed gains and losses in the Lemhi River and to estimate annual ground-water underflow from the basin to the Salmon River. In 1997, seepage measurements were made during and after the irrigation season along a 60-mile reach of the Lemhi River between Leadore and Salmon. Except for one 4-mile reach that lost 1.3 cubic feet per second per mile, the river gained from ground water in early August when ground-water levels were high. Highest flows in the Lemhi River in early August were about 400 cubic feet per second. In October, when ground-water levels were low, river losses to ground water were about 1 to 16 cubic feet per second per mile. In October, highest flows in the Lemhi River were about 500 cubic feet per second, near the river's mouth. Annual ground-water underflow from the Lemhi River Basin to the Salmon River was estimated by using a simplified water budget and by using Darcy's equation. The water-budget method contained large uncertainties associated with estimating precipitation and evapotranspiration. Results of both methods indicate that the quantity of ground water leaving the basin as underflow is small, probably less than 2 percent of the basin's total annual water yield.

Idaho↗
USGS1967

Hydrogeologic data for the Shetucket River basin, Connecticut

This report presents hydrologic and geologic data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during an investigation of water resources in the Shetucket River basin of Connecticut in cooperation with the Connecticut Water Resources Commission. The Shetucket River basin occupies about 507 square miles in the eastern part of the State, including the towns of Andover, Ashford, Chaplin, Coventry, Mansfield, Scotland, Sprague, Windham, and Willington, and parts of Bolton, Canterbury, Columbia, Eastford, Ellington, Franklin, Lebanon, Lisbon, Hampton, Hebron, Norwich, Pomfret, Stafford, Tolland, Union, Vernon, and Woodstock. A companion interpretive report, Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin ll, (Thomas, and others, 1967), evaluates the water resources of the basin. The data on the following pages serve to document and supplement that report and should be especially useful in planning the development of water resources at specific localities. Data were collected as part of this investigation during the period July 1962 through December 1964. Streamflow records from continuous-record gaging stations in the basin for this period have been published annually along with data from other parts of the State in a series of U.S. Geological Survey reports entitled "Surface Water Records of Connecticut." Water-level measurements in wells throughout the State from 1960 through 1964, including those made as part of this investigation, are published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin 7 (Meikle and Baker, 1965). Most other data collected during this investigation are tabulated on the following pages. Included are some well records and chemical analyses of water samples collected prior to July 1962 and not previously published. The locations of sites at which data were collected are shown on plate A in the pocket at the back of the report. Plate A includes the locations of 98 sites where 2 to 6 miscellaneous measurements of streamflow were made during 1963 and 13 other sites where continuous records are maintained. Data for these sites have already been published in "Surface Water Records of Connecticut" and are not repeated here. Data presented~ unless otherwise noted, were collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel.

Connecticut↗
USGS1988

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey during 1987

This volume is a continuation of the annual United States Geological Survey (USGS) Circulars reporting results of work in progress on earth science investigations in Alaska. The series began in 1975 under the title "The United States Geological Survey in Alaska - Accomplishments during 19xx" and has continued since 1986 under the present title. The 40 short papers and the feature article presented here report on some of the geologic studies undertaken in Alaska during 1987 by the USGS, cooperating agencies, and universities.

Alaska↗
USGS2008

Precipitation, Ground-water Hydrology, and Recharge Along the Eastern Slopes of the Sandia Mountains, Bernalillo County, New Mexico

The spatial and temporal distribution of recharge to carbonate and clastic aquifers along the eastern slopes of the Sandia Mountains was investigated by using precipitation, water-level, dissolved chloride, and specific-conductance data. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Bernalillo County Public Works Division, conducted a study to assess ground-water conditions and provide technical data that could be used as a basis for management and future planning of eastern Bernalillo County water resources. The intent of the investigation was to improve the current understanding of subsurface mechanisms controlling recharge dynamics in a geologically complex aquifer system. In the Sandia Mountains, precipitation events are generally limited to snowfalls in winter months and monsoon rainfall in late summer. Monthly meteorological data from weather stations in the study area indicate that monsoon rainfall during July and August constitutes close to one-third of annual precipitation totals. Following precipitation and snowmelt events, daily ground-water level data show low-amplitude, long-duration peaks in hydrographs of wells north and west of the Tijeras Fault. Hydrographs of monthly and biannual water-level data from across the study area show seasonal variation and water-level fluctuations in excess of 30 ft during a period of below-average precipitation. Water level observations in 67 percent of wells showing drought-induced water-level declines rebounded to at or near predrought conditions within 6 months of return to normal climate conditions. Cross-correlation of annual hydrologic data shows aquifer response to periods of monsoon recharge to persist from 1 to 6 months following events. The lag time between precipitation input and response of water levels or solute concentrations was largest near the Tijeras and Gutierrez Faults. These results indicate regional faults hydrologically isolate the Tijeras Graben from groundwater recharge originating at high elevations along the eastern slopes of the Sandia Mountains. Recharge rates calculated by using the chloride-mass-balance method for five springs located at the base of the Sandia Mountains ranged from 1 to 23 percent of annual precipitation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1970

Water Resources Data for California, 1966, 1967, 1968; Part 3: Ground Water Records

Ground-water records for wells in California in which periodic measurements of water level have been made during the years 1966-68 are given in this report. The records were collected and processed by the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, under the overall supervision of R. Stanley Lord, district chief in charge of water-resources investigations in California. Beginning with this report, water-level data will be released in the annual Geological Survey series "Water Resources Data for California." Prior records of water level and many additional well data are contained in the reports listed in the References section of this report. The observation-well program in California is carried on principally in cooperation with the several agencies listed on page III. In addition, several other agencies, also listed on page III, have provided data and their cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. Figure I shows, insofar as the map scale permits, the location of observation wells for which data are included in this report. The water-level records are arranged alphabetically by county, and for each county by valley or ground-water basin. Thus, each group of data pertains to a distinct ground-water area, as indicated by subheadings in the report. Under each subhead, the records are arranged numerically by well number.

California↗
USGS2003

Suspended sediment and bed load in three tributaries to Lake Emory in the upper Little Tennessee River basin, North Carolina, 2000-02

A study was conducted in the upper Little Tennessee River basin to characterize suspended-sediment and bed-load sediment transport into Lake Emory from the main stem and two major tributaries--Cartoogechaye Creek and the Cullasaja River. Suspended-sediment concentrations in the discharge from Lake Emory also were measured. Weekly samples for suspended-sediment concentration were collected between November 2000 and November 2001, and periodic samples were collected during targeted high-flow events. Suspended-sediment samples were collected during stormwater runoff conditions for analysis of particle-size distribution. Three bed-load samples were collected at each stream site. The greatest annual load (5,700 metric tons) and yield (18 metric tons per square kilometer) of suspended sediment during the study period were in the Little Tennessee River near Riverside, North Carolina. Much smaller annual yields were calculated for Lake Emory, the Cullasaja River, and Cartoogechaye Creek (5,5, and 7 metric tons per square kilometer, respectively). Drought conditions during the study period appear to have been a factor in the small loads compared to loads measured in the same area in the 1970's. The annual-mean streamflow at the Little Tennessee River at Prentiss during 2001 was about 50 percent of the long-term annual-mean streamflow (1944-2001). High-flow events carry most of the annual sediment load.

North Carolina↗
USGS2015

Preliminary estimates of annual agricultural pesticide use for counties of the conterminous United States, 2013

Summary This report provides preliminary estimates of annual agricultural use of 387 pesticide compounds in counties of the conterminous United States in 2013, compiled by means of methods described in Thelin and Stone (2013) and Baker and Stone (2015). U.S. Department of Agriculture county-level data for harvested-crop acreage were used in conjunction with proprietary Crop Reporting District-level pesticide-use data to estimate county-level pesticide use. Where Crop Reporting District data were not available or were incomplete, estimated pesticide use values were calculated with two different methods, resulting in a low and a high estimate based on different assumptions about missing survey data (Thelin and Stone, 2013). Preliminary estimates in this report are expected to be revised upon availability of updated crop acreages in the 2017 Agricultural Census, to be published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2019. Estimates of annual agricultural pesticide use are provided as downloadable, tab-delimited files, which are organized by compound, year, state Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code, county Federal Information Processing Standard code, and amount in kilograms (kg). The files, listed below, are a continuation of the 1992–2009 and 2008–2012 pesticide-use estimates reported by Stone (2013) and Baker and Stone (2015), respectively: High estimates of county pesticide use, arranged by pesticide name: Table 1. 1-Methyl Cyclopropene through Chlorantraniliprole Table 2. Chlorethoxyfos through Diflufenzopyr Table 3. Dimethenamid through Gibberellic Acid Table 4. Glufosinate through Metiram Table 5. Metolachlor through Propazine Table 6. Propiconazole through Triasulfuron Table 7. Tribenuron Methyl through Zoxamide Low estimates of county pesticide use, arranged by pesticide name: Table 8. 1-Methyl Cyclopropene through Chlorantraniliprole Table 9. Chlorethoxyfos through Diflufenzopyr Table 10. Dimethenamid through Gibberellic Acid Table 11. Glufosinate through Metiram Table 12. Metolachlor through Propazine Table 13. Propiconazole through Triasulfuron Table 14. Tribenuron Methyl through Zoxamide References Cited Baker, N.T., and Stone, W.W., 2015, Estimated annual agricultural pesticide use for counties of the conterminous United States, 2008–12: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 907, 9 p., accessed July, 12, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds907. Stone, W.W., 2013, Estimated annual agricultural pesticide use for counties of the conterminous United States, 1992–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 752, 1 p., 14 tables Thelin, G.P., and Stone, W.W., 2013, Estimation of annual agricultural pesticide use for counties of the conterminous United States, 1992–2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5009, 54 p.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1983

Uncertainties in records of annual mean discharge in Maine

This report documents the results of rating analyses of flow during periods of ice-cover at 33 stations on selected rivers in Maine. Results were obtained through linear multiple regression. It also presents functions relating uncertainties in records to the number of discharge measurements made at these and 21 other stations. The application is unusual in that it includes analysis of the uncertainty of discharge as affected by backwater from ice. Total uncertainty consists of errors incurred during measurement and during data processing. An average of 46.8 percent of the total variance for the 21 stations not affected by backwater was due to measurement variance, and 53.2 percent was due to process variance. Data from the remaining 33 stations were divided into summer (open-water) periods and the winter (backwater) periods. An average of 49.3 percent of the total variance for the summer-period stations was due to measurements variance; 50.7 percent was due to process variance. An average of 25.2 percent of the total variance for the winter-period stations was due to measurement variance; 74.8 percent was due to process variance. Results of the seasonal division of average variance suggest that the process and measurement variances are essentially equal during open-water periods and that process variance is considerably greater than the measurement variance during backwater periods. The errors in winter discharge records significantly increased average uncertainty in the records of annual mean discharge. (USGS)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗