Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “River Basin Bulletin”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1995

Magnitude and frequency of peak discharges for Mississippi River Basin Flood of 1993

The magnitude and frequency of the 1993 peak discharges in the upper Mississippi River Basin are characterized by applying Bulletin 17B and L-moment methods to annual peak discharges at 115 unregulated watersheds in the basin. The analysis indicated that the 1993 flood was primarily a 50-year or less event on unregulated watersheds less than about 50,000 km 2 (20,000 mi 2 ). Of the 115 stations analyzed, the Bulletin 17B and L-moment methods were used to identify 89 and 84 stations, respectively, having recurrence intervals of 50 years or less, and 31 and 26 stations, respectively, having recurrence intervals greater than 50 years for the 1993 peak discharges. The 1993 flood in the upper Mississippi River Basin was significant in terms of (a) peak discharges with recurrence intervals greater than 50 years at approximately 25 percent of the stations analyzed, (b) peak discharges of record at 33 of the 115 stations analyzed, (c) extreme magnitude, duration, and areal extent of precipitation, (d) flood volumes with recurrence intervals greater than 100 years at many stations, and (e) extreme flood damage and loss of lives. Furthermore, peak discharges on several larger, regulated watersheds also exceeded the 100-year recurrence interval. However, for about 75 percent of the 115 unregulated stations in the analysis, the frequency of the 1993 peak discharges was less than a 50-year event.

Transportation Research Record↗
USGS2020

Methods for estimating regional skewness of annual peak flows in parts of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Basins, based on data through water year 2013

Bulletin 17C (B17C) recommends fitting the log-Pearson Type III (LP−III) distribution to a series of annual peak flows at a streamgage by using the method of moments. The third moment, the skewness coefficient (or skew), is important because the magnitudes of annual exceedance probability (AEP) flows estimated by using the LP−III distribution are affected by the skew; interest is focused on the right-hand tail of the distribution, which represents the larger annual peak flows that correspond to small AEPs. For streamgages having modest record lengths, the skew is sensitive to extreme events like large floods, which cause a sample to be highly asymmetrical or “skewed.” For this reason, B17C recommends using a weighted-average skew computed from the station skew for a given streamgage and a regional skew. This report generates an estimate of regional skew for a study area encompassing most of the Great Lakes Basin (hydrologic unit 04) and part of the Ohio River Basin (hydrologic unit 05). A total of 551 candidate streamgages that were unaffected by extensive regulation, diversion, urbanization, or channelization were considered for use in the skew analysis; after screening for redundancy and pseudo record length greater than 36 years, 368 streamgages were selected for use in the study. Flood frequencies for candidate streamgages were analyzed by employing the Expected Moments Algorithm, which extends the method of moments so that it can accommodate interval, censored, and historic/paleo flow data, as well as the Multiple Grubbs-Beck test to identify potentially influential low floods in the data series. Bayesian weighted least squares/Bayesian generalized least squares regression was used to develop a regional skew model for the study area that would incorporate possible variables (basin characteristics) to explain the variation in skew in the study area. Twelve basin characteristics were considered as possible explanatory variables; however, none produced a pseudo coefficient of determination greater than 5 percent; as a result, these characteristics did not help to explain the variation in skew in the study area. Therefore, a constant model having a regional skew coefficient of 0.086 and an average variance of prediction ( AVP new ) (which corresponds to the mean square error [MSE]) of 0.13 at a new streamgage was selected. The AVP new corresponds to an effective record length of 54 years, a marked improvement over the Bulletin 17B national skew map, whose reported MSE of 0.302 indicated a corresponding effective record length of only 17 years.

Great Lakes and Ohio River Basins↗
USGS1973

Hydrogeologic data for the Quinnipiac River basin, Connecticut

This report contains geologic, ground-water, and quality-of-water data collected for the ground-water part of a water-resources inventory of the Quinnipiac River basin, Connecticut. The study was made by the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Collection sites for data used in the study are shown in plate A. A companion report interprets the ground-water, quality-of-water, and surfacewater data collected for the study (Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 27, in parparation). The Quinnipiac River basin~ as used in this report~ is a 360-square-mile area in south-central Connecticut drained principally by the Quinnipiac River and its tributaries and several smaller streams~ which drain directly to Long Island Sound. (See front cover and plate A.) The study area includes all or parts of the following towns: Ansonia, Berlin, Bethany, Branford, Bristol, Cheshire, Derby, Durham, East Haven, Farmington, Guilford, Hamden, Meriden, Middlefield, Middletown, Milford, New Britain, New Haven, North Branford, North Haven, Orange, Plainville, Prospect, Southington, Wallingford, West Haven, Wolcott, and Woodbridge. Data collected for this investigation from July 1969 to December 1971 were supplemented by data collected during previous investigations. This report includes some records of wells and test holes published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 5 and also includes some records used but not published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 14. Table 5 contains old but previously unpublished analyses of water from wells in New Haven collected primarily from 1938 to 1949. Ownership of the sampled wells, as shown in table 1 and table 5, was determined at the time of the original inventory, and this information may now be outdated. Many of these wells have been destroyed since they were last sampled and others, though still in existence, are no longer in use.

Connecticut↗
USGS2003

Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada

Northern Nevada is one of the world's foremost regions of gold production. The Humboldt River Basin (HRB) covers 43,500 km2 in northern Nevada (Crompton, 1995), and it is home to approximately 18 active gold and silver mines (Driesner and Coyner, 2001) among at least 55 significant metallic mineral deposits (Long and others, 1998). Many of the gold mines are along the Carlin trend in the east-central portion of the HRB, and together they have produced 50 million ounces of gold from 1962 (when the Carlin mine first opened) through April 2002 (Nevada Mining Association, 2002). Mining is not new to the region, however. Beginning in 1849, mining has taken place in numerous districts that cover 39 percent of the land area in the HRB (Tingley, 1998). In addition to gold and silver, As, Ba, Cu, Fe, Hg, Li, Mn, Mo, Pb, S, Sb, V, W, Zn, and industrial commodities such as barite, limestone, fluorite, sand and gravel, gypsum, gemstones, pumice, zeolites, and building stone, have been extracted from the HRB (McFaul and others, 2000). All papers within this series of investigations can be found as lettered chapters of USGS Bulletin 2210, Geoenvironmental Investigations of the Humboldt River Basin, Northern Nevada. Each chapter is available separately online. The data and software utilized in this product (Chapter F) permit the user to view and analyze the geographic relationships among chemistry of stream sediments and surface waters, geology, and various cartographic base information such as but not limited to cities, county boundaries, and land ownership. Data for this product were compiled and or produced as part of a mineral and environmental assessment of the Humboldt River basin conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey between 1995 - 2000.

Bulletin↗
USGS1971

Hydrogeologic data for the Upper Connecticut River Basin, Connecticut

This report contains geologic, ground-water, and quality-of-water data collected and compiled for a water resources investigation of the upper Connecticut River basin, Connecticut by the U.S. Geological Survey in financial cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. These data, together with surface-water data, were collected at sites shown on plate A and are, with exceptions discussed below, presented herein. The interpretation of these data will be published separately in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 24. As defined for this investigation, the upper Connecticut River basin is a 508-square-mile area in north-central Connecticut (see front cover and plate A) drained by the Connecticut River and its tributaries including the Farmington River downstream from the community of Tariffville. The basin includes all or parts of the following 30 towns: Avon, Bloomfield, Bolton, Cromwell, East Granby, East Hampton, East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington, Enfield, Farmington, Glastonbury, Hartford, Manchester, New Brltain, Newington, Plainville, Portland, Rocky Hill, Simsbury, Somers, South Windsor, Stafford, Suffield, Tolland, Vernon, West Hartford, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Windsor Locks. The data compiled for this investigation consist of those collected specifically for the study during the period July 1967 - December 1969 and those collected during previous investigations. Many records of wells and test holes in thus report were published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 4. This report is out of print, therefore these previously published records, together with newer ones, are published in this report to provide a readily available source of ground-water information. Previously published well numbers have been retained and are those published in this report. However, test holes previously published as wells have been assigned test-hole numbers; the former well number Is noted in table 3.

Connecticut↗
USGS1957

Drainage area data for Alabama streams

The drainage area of a river basin is an important parameter in many engineering equations used for hydrologic design. It is not a parameter, however, that always requires precise measurement. Factors in the hydrologic cycle such as rainfall, runoff, transpiration, and infiltration cannot be measured nearly as closely as drainage area. Largely for this reason, drainage areas are often measured to varying degrees of precision depending upon the immediate need, with little thought to some other use or some other user of the figure obtained. It can readily be appreciated that this practice, continued for long by many different agencies, will result in a heterogeneous collection of drainage area figures, often discordant and of an accuracy unknown to any but those who computed them. Figures of drainage area published by various Federal agencies are frequently discrepant or contradictory, giving rise to confusion in the use of drainage area data. Seeking to better this situation, the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee (FIARBC) in November 1951 published its Bulletin No. 4, Inter-Agency Coordination of Drainage Area Data . That Bulletin recommended procedures to be followed by the interested Federal agencies “for coordinating drainage area data in the interest of promoting uniformity, reducing confusion and contradiction of published figures, and improving the ready availability of drainage area data pertaining to drainage basins of the United States and its possessions.”

Alabama↗