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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2008

High-Resolution Digital Terrain Models of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Region, California

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Region Geographic Science Center, in conjunction with the USGS Water Resources Western Branch of Regional Research, has developed a high-resolution elevation dataset covering the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta region of California. The elevation data were compiled photogrammically from aerial photography (May 2002) with a scale of 1:15,000. The resulting dataset has a 10-meter horizontal resolution grid of elevation values. The vertical accuracy was determined to be 1 meter. Two versions of the elevation data are available: the first dataset has all water coded as zero, whereas the second dataset has bathymetry data merged with the elevation data. The projection of both datasets is set to UTM Zone 10, NAD 1983. The elevation data are clipped into files that spatially approximate 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles, with about 100 meters of overlap to facilitate combining the files into larger regions without data gaps. The files are named after the 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles that cover the same general spatial extent. File names that include a suffix (_b) indicate that the bathymetry data are included (for example, sac_east versus sac_east_b). These files are provided in ESRI Grid format.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Impact of sampling techniques on measured stormwater quality data for small streams

Science-based sampling methodologies are needed to enhance water quality characterization for setting appropriate water quality standards, developing Total Maximum Daily Loads, and managing nonpoint source pollution. Storm event sampling, which is vital for adequate assessment of water quality in small (wadeable) streams, is typically conducted by manual grab or integrated sampling or with an automated sampler. Although it is typically assumed that samples from a single point adequately represent mean cross-sectional concentrations, especially for dissolved constituents, this assumption of well-mixed conditions has received limited evaluation. Similarly, the impact of temporal (within-storm) concentration variability is rarely considered. Therefore, this study evaluated differences in stormwater quality measured in small streams with several common sampling techniques, which in essence evaluated within-channel and within-storm concentration variability. Constituent concentrations from manual grab samples and from integrated samples were compared for 31 events, then concentrations were also compared for seven events with automated sample collection. Comparison of sampling techniques indicated varying degrees of concentration variability within channel cross sections for both dissolved and particulate constituents, which is contrary to common assumptions of substantial variability in particulate concentrations and of minimal variability in dissolved concentrations. Results also indicated the potential for substantial within-storm (temporal) concentration variability for both dissolved and particulate constituents. Thus, failing to account for potential cross-sectional and temporal concentration variability in stormwater monitoring projects can introduce additional uncertainty in measured water quality data. Copyright ?? 2010 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America. All rights reserved.

Journal of Environmental Quality↗
USGS1960

A primer on water

When you open the faucet you expect water to flow. And you expect it to flow night or day, summer or winter, whether you want to fill a glass or water the lawn. It should be clean and pure, without any odor. You have seen or read about places where the water doesn't have these qualities. You may have lived in a city where you were allowed to water the lawn only during a few hours of certain days. We know a large town where the water turns brown after every big rainstorm. Beginning shortly after World War II, large areas in the Southwestern United States had a 10-year drought, and newspapers published a lot of information about its effects. Some people say that the growing demand for water will cause serious shortages over much of the country in the next 10 to 40 years. But it has always been true that while water wells and springs dry up in some places, floods may be occurring in other places at the same time. Nearly every month news stories are published describing floods somewhere in the country. In fact, every year, on the average, 75,000 persons are forced from their homes by floods. In some years, as in 1951 when the lower Kansas River experienced a great flood, half a million people are affected. To understand the reasons for such recurring distress, it is necessary to know something about rivers and about the flat land or flood plain that borders the river. Interest in water and related problems is growing as our population increases and as the use of water becomes steadily greater. To help meet this heightened interest in general information about water and its use and control is the reason this primer was written. The primer is in two parts. The first part tells about hydrology, or the science that concerns the relation of water to our earth, and the second part describes the development of water supplies and the use of water. The Geological Survey is publishing this primer in nontechnical language in the hope that it will enable the general reader to understand the facts about water as a part of nature, and that by having this understanding the people can solve their water problems. We, as representatives of the Geological Survey, acknowledge with thanks the helpful suggestions made on an early draft by Marion Loizeaux, Maria Lord Converse, Constance Foley, Laura R. Langbein, and Bruce C. Leopold. We are also indebted to various geologists and engineers of the Survey for their discerning critical reviews.

General Interest Publication↗
USGS2013

Tracking and forecasting the Nation’s water quality - Priorities and strategies for 2013-2023

Water-quality issues facing the Nation are growing in number and complexity, and solutions are becoming more challenging and costly. Key factors that affect the quality of our drinking water supplies and ecosystem health include contaminants of human and natural origin in streams and groundwater; excess nutrients and sediment; alteration of natural streamflow; eutrophication of lakes, reservoirs, and coastal estuaries; and changes in surface and groundwater quality associated with changes in climate, land and water use, and management practices. Tracking and forecasting the Nation's water quality in the face of these and other pressing water-quality issues are important goals for 2013-2023, the third decade of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. In consultation with stakeholders and the National Research Council, a new strategic Science Plan has been developed that describes a strategy for building upon and enhancing assessment of the Nation's freshwater quality and aquatic ecosystems. The plan continues strategies that have been central to the NAWQA program's long-term success, but it also makes adjustments to the monitoring and modeling approaches NAWQA will use to address critical data and science information needs identified by stakeholders. This fact sheet describes surface-water and groundwater monitoring and modeling activities that will start in fiscal year 2013. It also provides examples of the types of data and information products planned for the next decade, including (1) restored monitoring for reliable and timely status and trend assessments, (2) maps and models that show the distribution of selected contaminants (such as atrazine, nitrate, and arsenic) in streams and aquifers, and (3) Web-based modeling tools that allow managers to evaluate how water quality may change in response to different scenarios of population growth, climate change, or land-use management.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2024

Identifying priority science information needs for managing public lands

Public lands worldwide provide diverse resources, uses, and values, ranging from wilderness to extractive uses. Decision-making on public lands is complex as a result and is required by law to be informed by science. However, public land managers may not always have the science they need. We developed a methodology for identifying priority science needs for public land management agencies. We relied on two core data sources: environmental effects analyses conducted for agency decisions and legal challenges to those decisions. We considered needs in four categories: data, science, methods, and mitigation measures. We classified topics as primary science needs when (1) the topic was analyzed frequently in agency environmental analyses, (2) our metric of quality/defensibility was low or mitigation measures were frequently included for the topic, and (3) the agency was challenged on its use of science for the topic. We applied our methodology to the Bureau of Land Management—the largest public land manager in the United States—in Colorado, a state with abundant and diverse public lands. Primary identified needs were data on vegetation; science about effects of oil and gas development and livestock grazing on multiple resources, including terrestrial wildlife; methods for analyzing environmental effects for many topics; and mitigation measures for protecting vegetation, soils, water quality, and archaeological and historic resources. Science needs often reflect needs for facilitating and supporting the use of existing science in agency decision-making. Our method can be applied across agencies, geographies, and timeframes to help strengthen science use in public lands decision-making.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2016

Urban development and stream ecosystem health—Science capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey

Urban development creates multiple stressors that can degrade stream ecosystems by changing stream hydrology, water quality, and physical habitat. Contaminants, habitat destruction, and increasing streamflow variability resulting from urban development have been associated with the disruption of biological communities, particularly the loss of sensitive aquatic biota. Understanding how algal, invertebrate, and fish communities respond to these physical and chemical stressors can provide important clues as to how streams should be managed to protect stream ecosystems as a watershed becomes increasingly urbanized. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to lead monitoring efforts and scientific studies on the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems in metropolitan areas across the United States.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2017

The U.S. Geological Survey Peak-Flow File Data Verification Project, 2008–16

Annual peak streamflow (peak flow) at a streamgage is defined as the maximum instantaneous flow in a water year. A water year begins on October 1 and continues through September 30 of the following year; for example, water year 2015 extends from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The accuracy, characterization, and completeness of the peak streamflow data are critical in determining flood-frequency estimates that are used daily to design water and transportation infrastructure, delineate flood-plain boundaries, and regulate development and utilization of lands throughout the United States and are essential to understanding the implications of climate and land-use change on flooding and high-flow conditions. As of November 14, 2016, peak-flow data existed for 27,240 unique streamgages in the United States and its territories. The data, collectively referred to as the “peak-flow file,” are available as part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) public web interface, the National Water Information System, at https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/peak . Although the data have been routinely subjected to periodic review by the USGS Office of Surface Water and screening at the USGS Water Science Center level, these data were not reviewed in a national, systematic manner until 2008 when automated scripts were developed and applied to detect potential errors in peak-flow values and their associated dates, gage heights, and peak-flow qualification codes, as well as qualification codes associated with the gage heights. USGS scientists and hydrographers studied the resulting output, accessed basic records and field notes, and corrected observed errors or, more commonly, confirmed existing data as correct. This report summarizes the changes in peak-flow file data at a national level, illustrates their nature and causation, and identifies the streamgages affected by these changes. Specifically, the peak-flow data were compared for streamgages with peak flow measured as of November 19, 2008 (before the automated scripts were widely applied) and on November 14, 2016 (after several rounds of corrections). There were 659,332 peak-flow values in the 2008 dataset and 731,965 peak-flow values in the 2016 dataset. When compared to the 2016 dataset, 5,179 (0.79 percent) peak-flow values had changed; 36,506 (5.54 percent) of the peak-flow qualification codes had changed; 1,938 (0.29 percent) peak-flow dates had changed; 18,599 (2.82 percent) of the peak-flow gage heights had changed; and 20,683 (3.14 percent) of the gage-height qualification codes had changed—most as a direct result of the peak-flow file data verification effort led by USGS personnel. The various types of changes are summarized and mapped in this report. In addition to this report, a corresponding USGS data release is provided to identify changes in peak flows at individual streamgages. The data release and the procedures to access the data release are described in this report.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2005

A Science Framework for Connecticut River Watershed Sustainability

Introduction: This document outlines a research framework for water resource managers and land-use planners in the four-state Connecticut River Watershed (CRW). It specifically focuses on developing the decision-support tools and data needed by managers in the watershed. The purpose of the Science Framework is to identify critical research issues and information required to better equip managers to make decisions on desirable changes in the CRW. This Science Framework is the result of a cooperative project between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMass-Amherst), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The cooperative project was guided by a Science Steering Committee (SC) and included several focus groups, a 70-person workshop in September 2004, and an open collaborative process by which the workshop outcomes were synthesized, written up, and then progressively refined through peer review. This document is the product of that collaborative process.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Forum—Summary of remaining data and science needs and next steps

A U.S. Geological Survey-led assessment of data gaps and science needs across the Great Lakes ecosystem indicated the following: • Expanded data collection or monitoring would provide basic ecosystem, social, and public health data to manage the Great Lakes system and to develop and test models and decision support tools. • New science and advanced technologies (for example, sensors and high-performance computing capability) would improve the understanding of critical threats, such as harmful algae blooms and high-water levels. Although there is significant scientific knowledge in specific areas or for specific topics, managers could use improved models and decision support tools, strengthened by extensive data collection and developed at multiple scales, to better inform decision making in the future. Enhanced coordination of agency efforts and associated data collection across data types (for example, prey fish populations and water levels) is needed to effectively manage the Great Lakes. This report highlights the data gaps; benefits of better, more structured coordination; and areas of concern specifically related to data collection/measurement and science efforts. It summarizes and analyzes stakeholder feedback and information from review of scientific literature. Finally, the report outlines steps necessary to create an integrated Great Lakes science plan.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative—A case study in partnership development

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) is a successful example of collaboration between science and natural resource management at the landscape scale. In southwestern Wyoming, expanding energy and mineral development, urban growth, and other changes in land use over recent decades, combined with landscape-scale drivers such as climate change and invasive species, have presented compelling challenges to resource managers and a diverse group of Federal, State, industry, and non-governmental organizations, as well as citizen stakeholders. To address these challenges, the WLCI was established as a collaborative forum and interagency partnership to develop and implement science-based conservation actions. About a decade after being established, this report documents the establishment and history of the WLCI, focusing on the path to success of the initiative and providing insights and details that may be useful in developing similar partnerships in other locations. Not merely retrospective, the elements of the WLCI that are presented herein are still in play, still evolving, and still contributing to the resolution of compelling conservation challenges in the Western United States. The U.S. Geological Survey has developed many successful longstanding partnerships, of which the WLCI is one example. “As the Nation’s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the U.S. Geological Survey collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The diversity of our scientific expertise enables us to carry out large-scale, multi-disciplinary investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and other customers” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016).

Wyoming↗
USGS1999

Geology for a changing world: Summary of USGS Circular 1172: A science strategy for the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2000-2010

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides the Nation with reliable and timely earth science information that is used to minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; to manage energy, mineral, water, and biological resources; to enhance and protect the quality of life; and to contribute to wise economic development and a sustainable future. USGS Circular 1172, "Geology for a Changing World-- A Science Strategy for the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2000-2010," presents a science strategy describing how the Geologic Division will carry out its share of this mission for the years 2000-2010. Acquisition of scientific knowledge through research, assessment, and insightful monitoring and the effective communication of this knowledge to planners and decisionmakers will allow the Geologic Division and its partners to assist the Nation in meeting a complex, challenging, and promising future.

Information Handout↗
USGS2025

Refined mapping of subsurface water ice on Mars to support future missions

Mars has an extensive yet poorly understood cryosphere. Nevertheless, both direct and indirect evidence indicates extensive buried ice across the midlatitudes, including locations where it is presently unstable. While much progress has been made in exploring the processes responsible for ice deposition and preservation during recent climatic fluctuations, a global assessment of the multiple ice reservoirs remains elusive. Motivated by science and the need to find suitable human landing sites, the Mars Subsurface Water Ice Mapping (SWIM) project has developed techniques to map out buried ice. Through integration of all appropriate orbital data sets, the SWIM project produces ∼3 km pixel −1 ice consistency maps over depth ranges of 0–1 m, 1–5 m, and >5 m. In concert with other studies, prior SWIM phases have recognized the uncertainty in our understanding of the geographic and vertical distribution of ice, especially between depths of 1 m and 10 m, creating a push for new ice-prospecting orbital missions, such as the International Mars Ice Mapper mission concept. Here we document the latest SWIM phase, which provides notional targeting maps of the lowest-latitude ice for future missions via a significant improvement in the geomorphic component of our work. The new mapping incorporates both an enhancement in our mapping of geomorphic features and surveys of thermal contraction crack polygons. Our results demonstrate the highly variable nature of the spatial distribution of the shallowest ground ice, with the most equatorward excursions occurring below 30° latitude N/S, locations thought to be out of equilibrium with the current climate.

The Planetary Science Journal↗
USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey continuous monitoring workshop—Workshop summary report

Executive Summary The collection of high-frequency (in other words, “continuous”) water data has been made easier over the years because of advances in technologies to measure, transmit, store, and query large, temporally dense datasets. Commercially available, in-situ sensors and data-collection platforms—together with new techniques for data analysis—provide an opportunity to monitor water quantity and quality at time scales during which meaningful changes occur. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Continuous Monitoring Workshop was held to build stronger collaboration within the Water Mission Area on the collection, interpretation, and application of continuous monitoring data; share technical approaches for the collection and management of continuous data that improves consistency and efficiency across the USGS; and explore techniques and tools for the interpretation of continuous monitoring data, which increases the value to cooperators and the public. The workshop was organized into three major themes: Collecting Continuous Data, Understanding and Using Continuous Data, and Observing and Delivering Continuous Data in the Future. Presentations each day covered a variety of related topics, with a special session at the end of each day designed to bring discussion and problem solving to the forefront. The workshop brought together more than 70 USGS scientists and managers from across the Water Mission Area and Water Science Centers. Tools to manage, assure, control quality, and explore large streams of continuous water data are being developed by the USGS and other organizations and will be critical to making full use of these high-frequency data for research and monitoring. Disseminating continuous monitoring data and findings relevant to critical cooperator and societal issues is central to advancing the USGS networks and mission. Several important outcomes emerged from the presentations and breakout sessions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Pesticides in surface waters: distribution, trends, and governing factors

Pesticde use in agriculture and non-agriculture settings has increased dramatically over the last several decades. Concern about adverse effects on the environment and human health has spurred an enormous amount of research into their environmental behavior and fate. Pesticides in Surface Waters presents a comprehensive summary of this research. This book evaluates published studies that focus on measuring pesticide concentration. The studies chosen include peer reviewed scientific literature, government reports, laboratory studies, and those using microcosms and artificial streams and ponds. The authors used this information to develop their overview of pesticide contamination of surface waters. The exhaustive compilation of data along with the fundamental science make this book essential for those involved in pesticide use, environmental protection, water quality, and human or ecological risk assessment. Pesticides in Surface Waters covers the results of actual studies, sources of pesticides to surface water, fate and transport, and environmental significance. Hundreds of data-packed tables, maps, charts, and drawings illustrate the key points, making research and application easy and cost effective.

Book↗
USGS2013

Water resources and shale gas/oil production in the Appalachian Basin: critical issues and evolving developments

Unconventional natural gas and oil resources in the United States are important components of a national energy program. While the Nation seeks greater energy independence and greener sources of energy, Federal agencies with environmental responsibilities, state and local regulators and water-resource agencies, and citizens throughout areas of unconventional shale gas development have concerns about the environmental effects of high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), including those in the Appalachian Basin in the northeastern United States (fig. 1). Environmental concerns posing critical challenges include the availability and use of surface water and groundwater for hydraulic fracturing; the migration of stray gas and potential effects on overlying aquifers; the potential for flowback, formation fluids, and other wastes to contaminate surface water and groundwater; and the effects from drill pads, roads, and pipeline infrastructure on land disturbance in small watersheds and headwater streams (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012). Federal, state, regional and local agencies, along with the gas industry, are striving to use the best science and technology to develop these unconventional resources in an environmentally safe manner. Some of these concerns were addressed in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet 2009–3032 (Soeder and Kappel, 2009) about potential critical effects on water resources associated with the development of gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale of the Hamilton Group (Ver Straeten and others, 1994). Since that time, (1) the extraction process has evolved, (2) environmental awareness related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing process has increased, (3) state regulations concerning gas well drilling have been modified, and (4) the practices used by industry to obtain, transport, recover, treat, recycle, and ultimately dispose of the spent fluids and solid waste materials have evolved. This report updates and expands on Fact Sheet 2009–3032 and presents new information regarding selected aspects of unconventional shale gas development in the Appalachian Basin (primarily Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York). This document was prepared by the USGS, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, and reviews the evolving technical advances and scientific studies made in the Appalachian Basin between 2009 and the present (2013), addressing past and current issues for oil and gas development in the region.

Maryl;New York;Ohio;Pennsylvania;Virginia;West Vir↗
USGS2012

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force---Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Science Assessment and Needs

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (GCERTF) was established by Executive Order 13554 as a result of recommendations from “America’s Gulf Coast: A Long-term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (Mabus Report). The GCERTF consists of members from 11 Federal agencies and representatives from each State bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The GCERTF was charged to develop a holistic, long-term, science-based Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy for the Gulf of Mexico. Federal and State agencies staffed the GCERTF with experts in fields such as policy, budgeting, and science to help develop the Strategy. The Strategy was built on existing authorities and resources and represents enhanced collaboration and a recognition of the shared responsibility among Federal and State governments to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem. In this time of severe fiscal constraints, Task Force member agencies and States are committed to establishing shared priorities and working together to achieve them. As part of this effort, three staffers, one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist and two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, created and led a Science Coordination Team (SCT) to guide scientific input into the development of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. The SCT leads from the GCERTF coordinated more than 70 scientists from the Federal and State Task Force member agencies to participate in development of a restoration-oriented science document focused on the entire Gulf of Mexico, from inland watersheds to the deep blue waters. The SCT leads and scientists were organized into six different working groups based on expanded goals from the Mabus Report: Coastal habitats are healthy and resilient. Living coastal and marine resources are healthy, diverse, and sustainable. Coastal communities are adaptive and resilient. Storm buffers are sustainable. Inland habitats and watersheds are managed to help support healthy and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. Offshore environments are healthy and well managed Each working group was charged with defining their specific goal, describing the current conditions related to that goal (for example, the status of coastal habitats in the Gulf of Mexico), providing highlevel activities needed to further define and achieve the goal, with associated outcome-based performance indicators, and identifying the scientific gaps in understanding to accomplish the goal and implement the recommended activities. The overall scientific assessment reveals that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem continues to suffer from extensive degradation, and action is necessary to develop a healthy, resilient, and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The six groups also were tasked with outlining the necessary monitoring, modeling, and research needs to aid in achieving the goals. Recognizing that (1) the scientific needs (monitoring, modeling, and research) overlap among many of the goals, and (2) an overarching scientific framework could be developed to implement the necessary science in support of the Strategy, a seventh group was created with several members from each of the original six working groups. This seventh group compiled all of the cross-cutting monitoring, modeling, and research needs previously identified by the individual groups. These scientific requirements are found in Chapter 5 of this document. The seventh group also has developed a Science Plan, outlined in Chapter 6. The Science Plan provides the basic science infrastructure to support the overall Gulf restoration program and Strategy. The Science Plan allows for the development of an iterative and flexible approach to adaptive management and decision-making related to restoration projects based on sound science that includes monitoring, modeling, and research. Taken in its entirety, this document helps to articulate the current state of the system and the critical science needs to support effective restoration of the Gulf of Mexico resources that have been trending towards decline for decades.

Report↗
USGS2012

Erosion and sedimentation

Research activities in erosion and sedimentation processes have expanded broadly during the past several years and have kept pace with generally accelerated developments in all phases of hydrology and water resources investigations.

Eos Science News↗
USGS1964

[Book review] Politics and water resources

Arizona is a state in which development has proceeded sufficiently rapidly relative to the available water supply that its water problems are as acute as those of nearly any other state in the Union. Owing to the fact that, in the past, the principal use of water was for irrigation, and that the areas where the water has been utilized were geographically separated from the mountain zones where the water originated, surface water resources were developed fairly early in the state’s history.

Arizona↗