USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Hydrology”

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 523 records · Page 29Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Selecting the optimal fine-scale historical climate data for assessing current and future hydrological conditions

High-resolution historical climate grids are readily available and frequently used as inputs for a wide range of regional management and risk assessments, including water supply, ecological processes, and as baseline for climate change impact studies that compare them to future projected conditions. Because historical gridded climates are produced using various methods, their portrayal of landscape conditions differ, which becomes a source of uncertainty when they are applied to subsequent analyses. Here we tested the range of values from five gridded climate datasets. We compared their values to observations from 1231 weather stations, first using each dataset’s native scale, and then after each was rescaled to 270-m resolution. We inputted the downscaled grids to a mechanistic hydrology model and assessed the spatial results of six hydrological variables across California, in 10 ecoregions and 11 large watersheds in the Sierra Nevada. PRISM was most accurate for precipitation, ClimateNA for maximum temperature, and TopoWx for minimum temperature. The single most accurate dataset overall was PRISM due to the best performance for precipitation and low air temperature errors. Hydrological differences ranged up to 70% of the average monthly streamflow with an average of 35% disagreement for all months derived from different historical climate maps. Large differences in minimum air temperature data produced differences in modeled actual evapotranspiration, snowpack, and streamflow. Areas with the highest variability in climate data, including the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains ecoregions, also had the largest spread for snow water equivalent, recharge, and runoff.

Journal of Hydrometeorology↗
USGS2018

Quantifying and forecasting changes in the areal extent of river valley sediment in response to altered hydrology and land cover

In river valleys, sediment moves between active river channels, near-channel deposits including bars and floodplains, and upland environments such as terraces and aeolian dunefields. Sediment availability is a prerequisite for the sustained transfer of material between these areas, and for the eco-geomorphic functioning of river networks in general. However, the difficulty of monitoring sediment availability and movement at the reach or corridor scale has hindered our ability to quantify and forecast the response of sediment transfer to hydrologic or land cover alterations. Here we leverage spatiotemporally extensive datasets quantifying sediment areal coverage along a 28 km reach of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, southwestern USA. In concert with information on hydrologic alteration and vegetation encroachment resulting from the operation of Glen Canyon Dam (constructed in 1963) upstream of our study reach, we model the relative and combined influence of changes in (a) flow and (b) riparian vegetation extent on the areal extent of sediment available for transport in the river valley over the period from 1921 to 2016. In addition, we use projections of future streamflow and vegetation encroachment to forecast sediment availability over the 20 year period from 2016 to 2036. We find that hydrologic alteration has reduced the areal extent of bare sediment by 9% from the pre- to post-dam periods, whereas vegetation encroachment further reduced bare sediment extent by 45%. Over the next 20 years, the extent of bare sediment is forecast to be reduced by an additional 12%. Our results demonstrate the impact of river regulation, specifically the loss of annual low flows and associated vegetation encroachment, on reducing the sediment available for transfer within river valleys. This work provides an extendable framework for using high-resolution data on streamflow and land cover to assess and forecast the impact of watershed perturbation (e.g. river regulation, land cover shifts, climate change) on sediment connectivity at the corridor scale.

Arizona↗
USGS2016

Migratory bird habitat in relation to tile drainage and poorly drained hydrologic soil groups

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) is home to more than 50% of the migratory waterfowl in North America. Although the PPR provides an abundance of temporary and permanent wetlands for nesting and feeding, increases in commodity prices and agricultural drainage practices have led to a trend of wetland drainage. The Northern Shoveler is a migratory dabbling duck species that uses wetland habitats and cultivated croplands in the PPR. Richland County in North Dakota and Roberts County in South Dakota have an abundance of wetlands and croplands and were chosen as the study areas for this research to assess the wetland size and cultivated cropland in relation to hydrologic soil groups for the Northern Shoveler habitat. This study used geographic information system data to analyze Northern Shoveler habitats in association with Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data. Habitats, which are spatially associated with certain hydrologic soil groups, may be at risk of artificial drainage installations because of their proximity to cultivated croplands and soil lacking in natural drainage that may become wet or inundated. Findings indicate that most wetlands that are part of Northern Shoveler habitats were within or adjacent to cultivated croplands. The results also revealed soil hydrologic groups with high runoff potential and low water transmission rates account for most of the soil within the Northern Shoveler‘s wetland and cropland habitats. Habitats near agriculture with high runoff potential are likely to be drained and this has the potential of reducing Northern Shoveler habitat.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2018

Review and development of ASABE Engineering Practice 621: “Guidelines for calibrating, validating, and evaluating hydrologic and water quality models”

In 2010, the Natural Resources and Environmental Systems Hydrology Committee (NRES-21) of ASABE initiated a long-term process to develop guidelines to improve modeling practice through better understanding of the calibration, validation, and evaluation process across applications and more effective interpretation and communication of model performance. This effort generated a compilation of 23 articles with model-specific descriptions and guidance (2012), a position paper outlining guidance for evaluating, interpreting, and communicating performance of hydrologic and water quality models considering intended use (2014), and a compilation of ten articles addressing key topics related to model calibration and validation (2015). In 2016, the first draft of ASABE Engineering Practice 621 (EP621), “Guidelines for Calibrating, Validating, and Evaluating Hydrologic and Water Quality (H/WQ) Models,” was developed, subsequently revised, and ultimately approved by the ASABE Standards Committee in 2017. EP621 provides guidelines, not prescriptive requirements, and as such recommends “good” modeling practices to enhance calibration, validation, evaluation, and communication of H/WQ models through establishment of consistent terminology; model selection; compilation and processing of input data and calibration, validation, and evaluation data; determination of model performance measures; model parameterization and calibration; re-examination of input and calibration data and/or consideration of model refinement; re-evaluation of model performance; and documentation of modeling process and results. EP621 can be obtained from the ASABE Technical Library at https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=47804. The objectives of this technical note are to review the process and rationale used to develop EP621 and to briefly summarize its major components.

Transactions of the ASABE↗
USGS2015

Effects of land use on lake nutrients: The importance of scale, hydrologic connectivity, and region

Catchment land uses, particularly agriculture and urban uses, have long been recognized as major drivers of nutrient concentrations in surface waters. However, few simple models have been developed that relate the amount of catchment land use to downstream freshwater nutrients. Nor are existing models applicable to large numbers of freshwaters across broad spatial extents such as regions or continents. This research aims to increase model performance by exploring three factors that affect the relationship between land use and downstream nutrients in freshwater: the spatial extent for measuring land use, hydrologic connectivity, and the regional differences in both the amount of nutrients and effects of land use on them. We quantified the effects of these three factors that relate land use to lake total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) in 346 north temperate lakes in 7 regions in Michigan, USA. We used a linear mixed modeling framework to examine the importance of spatial extent, lake hydrologic class, and region on models with individual lake nutrients as the response variable, and individual land use types as the predictor variables. Our modeling approach was chosen to avoid problems of multi-collinearity among predictor variables and a lack of independence of lakes within regions, both of which are common problems in broad-scale analyses of freshwaters. We found that all three factors influence land use-lake nutrient relationships. The strongest evidence was for the effect of lake hydrologic connectivity, followed by region, and finally, the spatial extent of land use measurements. Incorporating these three factors into relatively simple models of land use effects on lake nutrients should help to improve predictions and understanding of land use-lake nutrient interactions at broad scales.

Michigan↗
USGS2009

Hydrologic processes and the water budget: Chapter 2

This chapter focuses on the hydrological setting of Mirror Lake and its water budget. It first describes the glacial deposits and bedrock topography in the Mirror Lake area. It then provides an overview of the hydrologic processes associated with Mirror Lake and examines the field and analytical methods used to determine its water budget. It presents results from the hydrologic studies, which are based on monthly and annual water budgets for the calendar years 1981 through 2000.

New Hampshire↗
USGS2018

Field and laboratory hydraulic characterization of landslide-prone soils in the Oregon Coast Range and implications for hydrologic simulation

Unsaturated zone flow processes are an important focus of landslide hazard estimation. Differences in soil hydraulic behavior between wetting and drying conditions (i.e., hydraulic hysteresis) may be important in landslide triggering. Hydraulic hysteresis can complicate soil hydraulic parameter estimates and impact prediction capability. This investigation focused on hydraulic property estimation for soil in a landslide‐prone area where the relative importance of hysteresis is unclear. Laboratory measurements of soil‐water retention from field soils in the Oregon Coast Range during wetting and drying show that pronounced hydraulic hysteresis is present. In contrast, a 4‐yr field data record of pore‐water pressure and soil‐water content from multiple soil pits at the same landslide‐prone area shows relatively minor hydraulic hysteresis compared with the laboratory estimates. Simulated subsurface hydrologic response parameterized using estimates from field data more closely matched hydrologic observations relative to model parameterization based on laboratory analysis of repacked soil samples. Our results suggest that (i) unsaturated hydraulic parameter estimates based on in situ field data, as opposed to laboratory measurements alone, may lead to more accurate simulation of the hydrologic response to rainfall, (ii) in situ data of soil‐water retention may need to include values at both high suctions and near saturation to improve estimates of soil hydraulic parameters for slope failure applications, and (iii) laboratory measurements of soil‐water retention made under dynamic conditions may overestimate hydraulic hysteresis.

Oregon↗
USGS1997

Effect of hydrologic management on marsh surface sediment deposition in coastal Louisiana

High rates of coastal land loss in Louisiana have prompted efforts to maintain or restore coastal wetland habitats, and structural management of marsh hydrology is one of a number of approaches that has been adopted. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of hydrologic management measures on marsh-surface sediment deposition in the Mississippi deltaic plain. Four impoundments, ranging in size from 50 ha to 177 ha and similarly sized control sites were included in the study. At each site, marsh-surface sediment traps were collected approximately biweekly for 3.5 yr to measure changes in sediment deposition. There was no significant difference in sediment deposition between any of the impoundment and control sites during the premanagement period. The results show no significant difference in marsh-surface sediment deposition between management year 1992–1993 and management year 1994–1995, but management year 1993–1994 had significantly lower sediment deposition than either the first or the last year of the study. Management year 1992–1993 showed the highest sediment deposition when it was assessed across all basins, areas, and sites, and this high rate of deposition is accounted for by the impact of Hurricane Andrew. For all management years there were significant differences between impoundment and control sites, with control sites showing higher rates of marsh surface sediment deposition than impoundments. No clear pattern was identified concerning the influence of various types of hydrologic management on rates of sediment deposition. This reduction in sediment deposition indicated that the areas under management in this study are receiving insufficient inorganic sediment deposition to keep pace with sea-level rise.

Louisiana↗
USGS2011

A Digital Hydrologic Network Supporting NAWQA MRB SPARROW Modeling--MRB_E2RF1

A digital hydrologic network was developed to support SPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) models within selected regions of the United States. These regions correspond with the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Major River Basin (MRB) study units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (Preston and others, 2009). MRB2, covers the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins. MRB3, covers the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins. MRB4, covers the Missouri River basins. MRB5, covers the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins. MRB7, covers the Pacific Northwest River basins. The digital hydrologic network described here represents surface-water pathways (MRB_E2RF1) and associated catchments (MRB_E2RF1WS). It serves as the fundamental framework to spatially reference and summarize explanatory information supporting nutrient SPARROW models (Brakebill and others, 2011; Wieczorek and LaMotte, 2011). The principal geospatial dataset used to support this regional effort was based on an enhanced version of a 1:500,000 scale digital stream-reach network (ERF1_2) (Nolan et al., 2002). Enhancements included associating over 3,500 water-quality monitoring sites to the reach network, improving physical locations of stream reaches at or near monitoring locations, and generating drainage catchments based on 100m elevation data. A unique number (MRB_ID) identifies each reach as a single unit. This unique number is also shared by the catchment area drained by the reach, thus spatially linking the hydrologically connected streams and the respective drainage area characteristics. In addition, other relevant physical, environmental, and monitoring information can be associated to the common network and accessed using the unique identification number.

Report↗
USGS2011

A Digital Hydrologic Network Supporting NAWQA MRB SPARROW Modeling--MRB_E2RF1WS

A digital hydrologic network was developed to support SPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) models within selected regions of the United States. These regions correspond with the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Major River Basin (MRB) study units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (Preston and others, 2009). MRB2, covers the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins. MRB3, covers the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins. MRB4, covers the Missouri River basins. MRB5, covers the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins. MRB7, covers the Pacific Northwest River basins. The digital hydrologic network described here represents surface-water pathways (MRB_E2RF1) and associated catchments (MRB_E2RF1WS). It serves as the fundamental framework to spatially reference and summarize explanatory information supporting nutrient SPARROW models (Brakebill and others, 2011; Wieczorek and LaMotte, 2011). The principal geospatial dataset used to support this regional effort was based on an enhanced version of a 1:500,000 scale digital stream-reach network (ERF1_2) (Nolan et al., 2002). Enhancements included associating over 3,500 water-quality monitoring sites to the reach network, improving physical locations of stream reaches at or near monitoring locations, and generating drainage catchments based on 100m elevation data. A unique number (MRB_ID) identifies each reach as a single unit. This unique number is also shared by the catchment area drained by the reach, thus spatially linking the hydrologically connected streams and the respective drainage area characteristics. In addition, other relevant physical, environmental, and monitoring information can be associated to the common network and accessed using the unique identification number.

Report↗
USGS2011

A Digital Hydrologic Network Supporting NAWQA MRB SPARROW Modeling--MRB_E2RF1WS

A digital hydrologic network was developed to support SPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) models within selected regions of the United States. These regions correspond with the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Major River Basin (MRB) study units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (Preston and others, 2009). MRB2, covers the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins. MRB3, covers the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins. MRB4, covers the Missouri River basins. MRB5, covers the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins. MRB7, covers the Pacific Northwest River basins. The digital hydrologic network described here represents surface-water pathways (MRB_E2RF1) and associated catchments (MRB_E2RF1WS). It serves as the fundamental framework to spatially reference and summarize explanatory information supporting nutrient SPARROW models (Brakebill and others, 2011; Wieczorek and LaMotte, 2011). The principal geospatial dataset used to support this regional effort was based on an enhanced version of a 1:500,000 scale digital stream-reach network (ERF1_2) (Nolan et al., 2002). Enhancements included associating over 3,500 water-quality monitoring sites to the reach network, improving physical locations of stream reaches at or near monitoring locations, and generating drainage catchments based on 100m elevation data. A unique number (MRB_ID) identifies each reach as a single unit. This unique number is also shared by the catchment area drained by the reach, thus spatially linking the hydrologically connected streams and the respective drainage area characteristics. In addition, other relevant physical, environmental, and monitoring information can be associated to the common network and accessed using the unique identification number.

General Information↗
USGS1964

Soil mechanics and soil physics symbols and nomenclature useful in hydrologic studies

The study of hydrology requires an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating knowledge from fields such as engineering, geology, chemistry, and agriculture. With increasing frequency, the hydrologist finds it necessary to study the literature of the soil mechanics and soil physics disciplines for assistance in the solution of hydrologic problems. Because of the inter-relation between hydrology and soil mechanics and soil physics, hydrologists also are preparing an increasing number of technical papers ·for use by these two disciplines. To permit the hydrologist to better understand specialized literature, as well as to assist him in preparing papers for these disciplines, this glossary of soil mechanics and soil physics nomenclature was prepared. It is a compilation from standards, dictionaries, and glossaries published by technical societies, and from reports by selected authorities in the fields of soil mechanics and soil physics. The variety of symbols and definitions presented for many of the terms demonstrates the difficulty that has been encountered over the years in reaching agreement on such a subject as nomenclature. Both old and new definitions and symbols are presented to assist the hydrologist in reading literature. Whenever possible the more recent symbols and nomenclature should be used by the hydrologist in writing papers for soil mechanics or soil physics audiences. When the hydrologist finds it necessary to use symbols or terms not included in the present list, he should try to select those not in conflict with the recent systems presented in this report. Symbols are listed in alphabetical order to assist readers in finding the term represented by a given symbol. Terms also are listed alphabetically, usually followed by recommended symbols and brief definitions. Where two or more symbols or definitions are listed following a term, no significance should be placed on the order of presentation. The source is indicated for each symbol, term, or definition, and the sources are listed in the cited references. It is emphasized that this report is only a compilation of nomenclature generally accepted in the soil mechanics apd soil physics disciplines. It does not necessarily represent the recommendations or usage of such nomenclature by the Geological Survey or any part of its organization.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: Hydrologic Landscape Regions

This data set represents the area of Hydrologic Landscape Regions (HLR) compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set is a 100-meter version of Hydrologic Landscape Regions of the United States (Wolock, 2003). HLR groups watersheds on the basis of similarities in land-surface form, geologic texture, and climate characteristics. 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↗
USGS2017

Hydrologic Derivatives for Modeling and Analysis—A new global high-resolution database

The U.S. Geological Survey has developed a new global high-resolution hydrologic derivative database. Loosely modeled on the HYDRO1k database, this new database, entitled Hydrologic Derivatives for Modeling and Analysis, provides comprehensive and consistent global coverage of topographically derived raster layers (digital elevation model data, flow direction, flow accumulation, slope, and compound topographic index) and vector layers (streams and catchment boundaries). The coverage of the data is global, and the underlying digital elevation model is a hybrid of three datasets: HydroSHEDS (Hydrological data and maps based on SHuttle Elevation Derivatives at multiple Scales), GMTED2010 (Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010), and the SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission). For most of the globe south of 60°N., the raster resolution of the data is 3 arc-seconds, corresponding to the resolution of the SRTM. For the areas north of 60°N., the resolution is 7.5 arc-seconds (the highest resolution of the GMTED2010 dataset) except for Greenland, where the resolution is 30 arc-seconds. The streams and catchments are attributed with Pfafstetter codes, based on a hierarchical numbering system, that carry important topological information. This database is appropriate for use in continental-scale modeling efforts. The work described in this report was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center.

Data Series↗
USGS2014

Site-characteristic and hydrologic data for selected wells and springs on Federal land in Clark County, Nevada

Site-characteristic and hydrologic data for selected wells and springs on U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service land in Clark County, Nevada, were updated in the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Information System (NWIS) to facilitate multi-agency research. Data were researched and reviewed, sites were visited, and NWIS data were updated for 231 wells and 198 springs, including 36 wells and 67 springs that were added to NWIS and 44 duplicate sites that were deleted. The site-characteristic and hydrologic data collected, reviewed, edited, and added to NWIS include locations, well water levels, spring discharges, and water chemistry. Site-characteristic and hydrologic data can be accessed from links to the NWIS web interface; data not available through the web interface are presented in appendixes to this report.

Nevada↗
USGS2002

Investigation of the geology and hydrology of the Coconino Plateau of northern Arizona: a project of the Arizona Rural Watershed Initiative

The water resources of the Coconino Plateau in northern Arizona are under increasing demand as a result of development. The population of this arid region continues to grow, and the number of visitors to the many national and state parks and monuments in the region has increased annually. The sustainability, protection, and maintenance of springs and seeps and associated riparian habitat on the Coconino Plateau are major issues that have broad public and governmental support. Regional stakeholders agree that an improved understanding of the regional hydrogeologic system is needed to address the concerns of water supply and ground-water sustainability. The base of information required to adequately describe the hydrogeology of the Coconino Plateau currently does not exist. Hydrogeologic data is most abundant for large population centers like Flagstaff and Sedona, but is sparse for less populated areas like Williams, Tusayan, Valle, and Cameron. There are still large parts of the Coconino Plateau for which there is no basic geologic or hydrologic information available. In order to develop a hydrogeologic framework for the Coconino Plateau, a comprehensive effort is needs to compile existent data and collect additional data to fill in data gaps and reinforce limited information. In 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began an assessment of the hydrogeology of the Coconino Plateau in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) as part of the Rural Watershed Initiative, a program established by the State of Arizona and managed by the ADWR. Assessments also are underway in the upper-middle Verde River watershed (Woodhouse and others, 2002) to the south and in the Mogollon Highlands to the southeast (Parker and Flynn, 2000). Each study has as its objectives: (1) the collection, compilation, and evaluation of all existing geologic, hydrologic, and related data pertaining to the study area and the creation of a database that is readily accessible to the public and (2) the development of an understanding of the hydrogeologic framework, which is the relation between hydrologic and geologic properties, that can be used for water-resources management purposes and that will support the development of conceptual and interpretive models that can be used to evaluate the effects of climate and water use on regional water resources.

Arizona↗
USGS2003

Selected applications of hydrologic science and research in Maryland, Delaware, and Washington, D.C., 2001-2003

One of the roles of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to provide reliable water data and unbiased water science needed to describe and understand the Nation?s water resources. This fact sheet describes selected techniques that were used by the USGS to collect, transmit, evaluate, or interpret data, in support of investigations that describe the quantity and quality of water resources in Maryland (MD), Delaware (DE), and the District of Columbia (D.C.). These hydrologic investigations generally were performed in cooperation with universities, research centers, and other Federal, State, and local Government agencies. The applications of hydrologic science and research that were selected for this fact sheet were used or tested in the MD-DE-DC District from 2001 through 2003, and include established methods, new approaches, and preliminary research. The USGS usually relies on standard methods or protocols when conducting water-resources research. Occasionally, traditional methods must be modified to address difficult environmental questions or challenging sampling conditions. Technologies developed for other purposes can sometimes be successfully applied to the collection or dissemination of water-resources data. The USGS is continually exploring new ways to collect, transmit, evaluate, and interpret data. The following applications of hydrologic science and research illustrate a few of the recent advances made by scientists working for and with the USGS.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2003

Applying indicators of hydrologic alteration to Texas streams: overview of methods with examples from the Trinity River basin

Streamflow is a component of aquatic ecosystem health, and long-term alteration of streamflow characteristics can produce large changes in aquatic ecosystem structure and function. The physical, chemical, and biological properties of aquatic ecosystems are all affected by the magnitude and frequency of streamflow. For example, the physical structure (hydrogeomorphology) of aquatic habitats is a property of the interaction between streamflow magnitude and frequency and the physical landscape (Leopold and others, 1992). Chemical processes are affected by changes in water residence time, which is a function of streamflow. Similarly, the structure and function of biological communities associated with stream ecosystems depend in large part on the hydrologic regime (Poff and Ward, 1989, 1990; Sparks, 1992). Within-year variation in streamflow is essential to the survival, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Altering streamflow magnitude and frequency and within-year variability has the potential to modify critical aspects of the physical habitat (Bain and others, 1988). Documenting the degree to which streamflow has been modified by the cumulative effects of water development is critical to assessing aquatic ecosystem health. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, conducted a study of the application of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) methods developed by Richter and others (1996, 1997) to identify streams at risk for biological impairment from the loss of streamflow-dependent habitat. This report provides a brief overview of selected IHA methods for assessing hydrologic alteration; presents examples that illustrate the application of the methods using streamflow data from a subset of USGS stations in the Trinity River Basin, Texas, analyzed in the study; and addresses applicability of the methods statewide.

Texas↗