USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Resources”

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 1,801 records · Page 100Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Star crossings and stone monuments-Field astronomy by the Wheeler Survey in 1870s Colorado

The decade of the 1870s was a time of extensive exploration and surveying in the American West. The nation needed knowledge of the cultural features, topography, natural resources, and geology of this land to promote and aid the 'rapid development of an empire.' The need was particularly acute in the region that still was known in the early 1870s as Colorado Territory. There, cities and towns were springing up along the base of the Front Range, railroads were expanding, and in the mountains prospectors and miners were exploring the countryside seeking and extracting the region's abundant mineral resources. Also, recurring conflicts between the newcomers and Native Americans made it desirable to have accurate maps for military purposes. Four major government-sponsored scientific surveys formed the principal organized effort to provide critical knowledge of the land. Civilian scientists led three of these: John Wesley Powell ('Geographical and Topographical Survey of the Colorado River of the West'); Ferdinand V. Hayden ('Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories'); and Clarence King ('Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel'). Lt. George Montague Wheeler, a young graduate of West Point (Class of 1866) and a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, led the fourth and most ambitious project ('United States Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian').

Circular↗
USGS2012

Streamflow depletion by wells--Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow

Groundwater is an important source of water for many human needs, including public supply, agriculture, and industry. With the development of any natural resource, however, adverse consequences may be associated with its use. One of the primary concerns related to the development of groundwater resources is the effect of groundwater pumping on streamflow. Groundwater and surface-water systems are connected, and groundwater discharge is often a substantial component of the total flow of a stream. Groundwater pumping reduces the amount of groundwater that flows to streams and, in some cases, can draw streamflow into the underlying groundwater system. Streamflow reductions (or depletions) caused by pumping have become an important water-resource management issue because of the negative impacts that reduced flows can have on aquatic ecosystems, the availability of surface water, and the quality and aesthetic value of streams and rivers. Scientific research over the past seven decades has made important contributions to the basic understanding of the processes and factors that affect streamflow depletion by wells. Moreover, advances in methods for simulating groundwater systems with computer models provide powerful tools for estimating the rates, locations, and timing of streamflow depletion in response to groundwater pumping and for evaluating alternative approaches for managing streamflow depletion. The primary objective of this report is to summarize these scientific insights and to describe the various field methods and modeling approaches that can be used to understand and manage streamflow depletion. A secondary objective is to highlight several misconceptions concerning streamflow depletion and to explain why these misconceptions are incorrect.

Circular↗
USGS2013

Progress toward establishing a national assessment of water availability and use

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) was passed into law on March 30, 2009. Subtitle F, also known as the SECURE Water Act, calls for the establishment of a "national water availability and use assessment program" within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). A major driver for this recommendation was that national water availability and use have not been comprehensively assessed since 1978. This report fulfills a requirement to report to Congress on progress in implementing the national water availability and use assessment program, also referred to as the National Water Census. The SECURE Water Act authorized \$20 million for each of fiscal years (FY) 2009 through 2023 for assessment of national water availability and use. The first appropriation for this effort was \$4 million in FY 2011, followed by an appropriation of \$6 million in FY 2012. The National Water Census synthesizes and reports information at the regional and national scales, with an emphasis on compiling and reporting the information in a way that is useful to states and others responsible for water management and natural-resource issues. The USGS works with Federal and non-Federal agencies, universities, and other organizations to ensure that the information can be aggregated with other types of water-availability and socioeconomic information, such as data on food and energy production. To maximize the utility of the information, the USGS coordinates the design and development of the effort through the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information. A National Water Census is a complex undertaking, particularly because there are major gaps in the information needed to conduct such an assessment. To maximize progress, the USGS engaged stakeholders in a discussion of priorities and leveraged existing studies and program activities to enhance efforts toward the development of a National Water Census.

Circular↗
USGS2014

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center annual report for 2013

In 2008, Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The center was formed to respond to the demands of natural resource managers for rigorous scientific information and effective tools for assessing and responding to climate change. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Va., the NCCWSC has invested more than $93 million (through FY13) in cutting-edge climate change research and, in response to Secretarial Order No. 3289, established and is managing eight regional Department of Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs). In 2013: The DOI CSCs awarded nearly $7 million in funding to universities and other partners for climate and land-use change research. The scientific work of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise moved toward projects that focus on ‘Science Infrastructure and Capacity Building’ and ‘Thematic Science’. A permanent director, David Helweg, Ph.D., was hired for the Pacific Islands CSC (PI CSC), completing the CSC leadership team. Staff scientists were hired at the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) CSCs. Each of the eight CSCs completed the formation of regional Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs) and a national advisory committee (ACCCNRS) was created to oversee the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. NCCWSC staff worked on creating a searchable public database on climate change vulnerability assessments. NCCWSC scientists authored articles in a special issue of the Ecological Society of America’s journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which was devoted to an assessment of climate change effects on biodiversity and ecosystems, and the consequences for people. Learn more about these achievements in The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center Annual Report for 2013 .

Circular↗
USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗
USGS2018

Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and applications

Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.

Circular↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program had an interesting and challenging year in 2018. We made significant strategic advances on many fronts and had setbacks in others. Our relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency we belonged to from 1935 to the mid-1990s, was further reinforced through strategic efforts with the Service’s Science Applications senior staff. This is bearing fruit in terms of research collaborations and funding support. As part of a larger effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area and the Service’s endangered species program, we are also collaborating to address science needs for species in pre-listing status. Barry Grand, Unit Supervisor (South), has been instrumental in this effort. Tom Edwards of the Utah Unit has met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote training of leaders and “hands dirty” biologists in species distribution modeling. The Association passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the training at their midyear meeting in March. Tom held a workshop at the annual meeting of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in September, and future workshops, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be held bringing State agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists together to work on species of common concern. Wyoming Unit Leader Matt Kauffman’s pioneering work in identifying and mapping big-game migration corridors has captured the attention of conservationists far and wide. In the spring, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No. 3362, "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors" directing efforts of several U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to collaborate with States in identifying and protecting big-game corridors in 11 States. Matt has conducted several workshops that directly support the Secretarial order, and more are planned. Corridor mapping efforts supported by the USGS and the DOI, based in the States and coordinated by Matt, are unfolding. Unit Administrative Officer Shana Coulby and her staff hosted a training program for university support staff at USGS National Headquarters in March. Shana’s team did a superb job, and the camaraderie among all was evident. We co-sponsored the third in a series of workshops at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March on bridging the gap between science and management. The State Department requested that we coordinate a workshop that would bring CRU scientists and other U.S. representatives together with Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian scientists and decision makers to develop best practices to minimize environmental damage from infrastructure development in the Amazon and to collaborate on science needs. The workshop was held in Iquitos, Peru, in the heart of the Amazon during August. Our cooperator community, represented by the National Cooperators Coalition, was very active in response to the President’s budget proposal that would have redirected funding for the CRU program to other priorities. Their efforts are reflected in the House and Senate marks on the fiscal year 2019 budget that not only restored funding, but recommended increases. You will see in this report many other accomplishments of our individual scientists and students during 2018. It was an impressive and productive year! What you won’t see chronicled is the work of the CRU headquarters staff and University support staff. These folks are extraordinary in their dedication to working with cooperators and scientists to solve problems and ensure the important work gets accomplished with minimal interference. We are truly fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated folks in the trenches. I was fortunate to visit several units during 2018. For me, this is the most enriching part of my duties. I get to see firsthand the work our scientists do, the incredible students being mentored, and meet our cooperators on their turf. As we look forward towards the horizon, 2019 looks brighter for the CRU program. Efforts by our cooperators to generate support for filling our vacancies are materializing. Our cadre of scientists is second to none, and the breadth and depth of our work are nothing short of impressive. Thanks to all who are part of this cooperative endeavor—conservation is the ultimate winner in our efforts!

Circular↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey wildland fire science strategic plan, 2021–26

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wildland Fire Science Strategic Plan defines critical, core fire science capabilities for understanding fire-related and fire-responsive earth system processes and patterns, and informing management decision making. Developed by USGS fire scientists and executive leadership, and informed by conversations with external stakeholders, the Strategic Plan is aligned with the needs of the fire science stakeholder community–fire, land, natural resource, and emergency managers from Federal, State, Tribal, and community organizations, as well as members of the scientific community. The Strategic Plan is composed of four integrated priorities, each with associated goals and specific strategies for accomplishing the goals: Priority 1: Produce state-of-the-art, actionable fire science; Priority 2: Engage stakeholders in science production and science delivery; Priority 3: Effectively communicate USGS fire science capacity, products, and information to a broad audience; and Priority 4: Enhance USGS organizational structure and advance support for fire science. The priorities of this Strategic Plan define the USGS’s commitment to producing and delivering cutting edge fire science, information, and decision-support tools in support of national, regional, and local priorities and stakeholder needs.

Circular↗
USGS2023

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2022 year in review

Established in 1935, the CRU program is a unique cooperative partnership among State Fish and Wildlife agencies, host universities, Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and to produce trained wildlife management professionals, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 42 units located on university campuses in 40 States.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2023 Year-in-Review

Introduction Established in 1935, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program is a unique cooperative partnership among State fish and wildlife agencies, host universities, the Wildlife Management Institute, USGS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and to produce trained wildlife management professionals, the program has grown from the original nine wildlife-only Units to a program that, as of 2024, includes 43 Units located on university campuses in 41 States.

Circular↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Imperviousness

This data set represents the mean percent impervious surface from the Imperviousness Layer of the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 (LaMotte and Wieczorek, 2010), compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set represents imperviousness for the conterminous United States for 2001. The Imperviousness Layer of the National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Land Use and Land Cover

This data set represents the estimated area of land use and land cover from the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 (LaMotte, 2008), compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set represents land use and land cover for the conterminous United States for 2001. The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major River Basins in the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Tree Canopy

This tabular data set represents the mean percent tree canopy from the Canopy Layer of the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 (LaMotte and Wieczorek, 2010), compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data set represents tree canopy percentage for the conterminous United States for 2001. The Canopy Layer of the National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2011). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major River Basins in the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Imperviousness

This tabular data set represents the mean percent impervious surface from the Imperviousness Layer of the National Land Cover Dataset 2001, (LaMotte and Wieczorek, 2010), compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of selected Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data set represents imperviousness for the conterminous United States for 2001. The Imperviousness Layer of the National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002;Brakebill and others, 2011). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering New England and Mid-Atlantic (MRB1), South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5), the Rio Grande, Colorado, and the Great basin (MRB6), the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins, and California (MRB8).

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for MRB_E2RF1 Catchments by Major River Basins in the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Land Use and Land Cover

This tabular data set represents the estimated area of land use and land cover from the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 (LaMotte, 2008), compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment of the Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). The source data set represents land use and land cover for the conterminous United States for 2001. The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The MRB_E2RF1 catchments are based on a modified version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) ERF1_2 and include enhancements to support national and regional-scale surface-water quality modeling (Nolan and others, 2002; Brakebill and others, 2011). Data were compiled for every MRB_E2RF1 catchment for the conterminous United States covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee (MRB2), the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy (MRB3), the Missouri (MRB4), the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf (MRB5) and the Pacific Northwest (MRB7) river basins.

Data Series↗
USGS2022

Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2020

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, monitors stations designed for the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network, a collection of stations that monitor streams and springs in Missouri. During water year 2020 (October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), the U.S. Geological Survey collected water-quality data at 72 stations: 70 Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring stations and 2 U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Network stations. Among the stations in this report, four stations have data from additional sampling completed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water-quality analyses are provided for dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, Escherichia coli bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc, and selected pesticide compounds. Monitoring stations have been classified based on the physiographic province or primary land use in the watershed or based on the unique hydrologic characteristics of the waterbodies (springs, large rivers) monitored. A summary of hydrologic conditions including peak streamflows, monthly mean streamflows, and 7-day low flows also are provided for representative streamgages in the State.

Missouri↗
USGS2023

Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2021

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, maintains a statewide group of stations known as the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network, which includes selected streams and springs in Missouri. During water year 2021 (October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021), the U.S. Geological Survey collected water-quality data at 72 stations: 70 Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network stations and 2 U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Network stations. Four of the stations have data from additional sampling completed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water-quality data provided in this report include dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, Escherichia coli bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc, and selected pesticide compounds. Monitoring stations have been classified based on the physiographic province or primary land use in the drainage basin or based on the unique hydrologic characteristics of the waterbodies (springs, large rivers) monitored. A summary of hydrologic conditions, including peak streamflows, monthly mean streamflows, and 7-day low flows, also is provided for representative streamgages in the State.

Missouri↗
USGS2016

Quality of surface water in Missouri, water year 2015

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, designed and operates a series of monitoring stations on streams and springs throughout Missouri known as the Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network. During water year 2015 (October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015), data were collected at 74 stations—72 Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring Network stations and 2 U.S. Geological Survey National Stream Quality Assessment Network stations. Dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, water temperature, suspended solids, suspended sediment, Escherichia coli bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved and total recoverable lead and zinc, and select pesticide compound summaries are presented for 71 of these stations. The stations primarily have been classified into groups corresponding to the physiography of the State, primary land use, or unique station types. In addition, a summary of hydrologic conditions in the State including peak streamflows, monthly mean streamflows, and 7-day low flows is presented.

Missouri↗

Refine your search to explore more results.