USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS1953

Numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Reports to April 30, 1953

This report contains 1) a list in numerical order of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum Reports, and 2) an author index for these reports. It supercedes TEI-30, issued in November 1952. This report contains lists not only of reports that have been transmitted to the U.S Atomic Energy Commission, that is, those reports followed by a date, but also those reports for which tentative titles were available prior to the date of completion of this list, April 30, 1953. The reports that are in preparation and subject to change in title are indicated by an asterisk. The classifications that are shown for some of the reports issued prior to 1947 are uncertain: classifications shown are based on the best information available at the time that this report was prepared. The Geological Survey does not have additional copies for permanent distribution of most of the reports listed, but copies of many of the completed reports can be loaned to organizations or individuals who are cooperating with the Atomic Energy Commission.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2013

Band reporting probablilities of mallards, American black ducks, and wood ducks in eastern North America

Estimates of band reporting probabilities are used for managing North American waterfowl to convert band recovery probabilities into harvest probabilities, which are used to set harvest regulations. Band reporting probability is the probability that someone who has shot and retrieved a banded bird will report the band. This probability can vary relative to a number of factors, particularly the inscription on the band and the ease with which it can be reported. Other factors, such as geographic reporting region, and species and sex of the bird may also play a role. We tested whether reporting probabilities of wood ducks ( Aix sponsa ) and American black ducks (black ducks; Anas rubripes ) differed from those of mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and whether band reporting varied geographically or by the sex of the banded bird. In the analysis of spatially comparable wood duck and mallard data, a band reporting probability of 0.73 (95% CI = 0.67–0.78) was appropriate for use across species, sex, and reporting region within the United States. In the black duck–mallard comparison, the band reporting probability of black ducks in Eastern Canada (0.50, 95% CI = 0.44–0.57) was lower than in the Eastern United States (0.73, 95% CI = 0.62–0.83). These estimates reflected an increase in overall band reporting probability following the addition of a toll-free telephone number to band inscriptions. Lower reporting in Eastern Canada may be because of cultural, linguistic, or logistical barriers.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2024

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2016–November 30, 2017

Executive Summary A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954 ( New Jersey v. New York , 347 U.S. 995), established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes the diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from certain reservoirs owned by New York City be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master provide reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 64th annual report of the River Master of the Delaware River. The report covers the 2017 River Master report year, from December 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 47.85 inches or 108 percent of the long-term average. On December 1, 2016, combined useable storage in the New York City reservoirs in the upper Delaware River Basin was 110.115 billion gallons or 40.7 percent of combined storage capacity, the lowest combined storage of the 2017 report year. The reservoirs were at about 100 percent of useable capacity on May 31, 2017. Combined storage remained above 80 percent of combined capacity until September 2017. A lower basin drought watch issued by the Delaware River Basin Commission in 2016 extended from the beginning of this report year to January 18, 2017. The drought watch was ended on January 18, 2017, due to increased precipitation in December 2016. River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Programs. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey fully complied with the Decree. Reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey (N.J.), on 52 days during the report year. Interim Excess Release Quantity and conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were made during the report year. Excess Release Quantity and Interim Excess Release Quantity Bank releases were also made during the report year. The water quality in the Delaware River estuary between the streamgages at Trenton, N.J., and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at various locations. The data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2021

Modern reporting methods for angler tag-return studies:Trends in data quality, choice of method, and future considerations

Angler tag-return studies are a cornerstone of fisheries research, providing insights into individual movements and estimates of exploitation, among many other applications. However, the data generated from these studies is dependent upon effective communication between anglers and scientists. As technological advances are adopted by anglers, little research has been directed at the potential benefits of incorporating modern tag reporting methods. We tagged stream-dwelling black bass Micropterus spp. and provided anglers a choice of reporting methods (telephone, email, iNaturalist app, or a “mixed-mode” combination thereof). Our objectives were to examine the fate of reported fish, quantify trends in data quality across reporting methods, and explore how geographic location and angler avidity may influence use of reporting methods. Ninety-four percent of tag reports involved the release of the fish with the tag still intact, creating opportunities for longer-term data collection. Telephone was the most commonly used reporting method; however, this method had significantly lower completeness scores (e.g., lack of photographs or specifying fate of fish) and less precise location information than other methods. In contrast, iNaturalist had the highest completeness and most precise location information but was seldom used and had increased lag times in reporting. We found no significant differences in the proportion of reporting methods used across stream locations in our study, and avid anglers appeared to be individualistic in their choice of method. Overall, our study suggests that the adoption of modern reporting methods, like email and smartphone apps, could benefit data collection efforts of angler tag-return studies. Fisheries scientists may wish to consider which reporting methods align with their specific study objectives and with the angling public of a given study area.

Arkansas, Oklahoma↗
USGS2006

Response to memorandum by Rowley and Dixon regarding U.S. Geological Survey report titled "Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada"

Applications pending for permanent permits to pump large quantities of ground water in Spring and Snake Valleys adjacent to Great Basin National Park (the Park) prompted the National Park Service to request a study by the U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate the susceptibility of the Park's surface-water resources to pumping. The result of this study was published as U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5099 'Characterization of Surface-Water Resources in the Great Basin National Park Area and Their Susceptibility to Ground-Water Withdrawals in Adjacent Valleys, White Pine County, Nevada,' by P.E. Elliott, D.A. Beck, and D.E. Prudic. That report identified areas within the Park where surface-water resources are susceptible to ground-water pumping; results from the study showed that three streams and several springs near the eastern edge of the Park were susceptible. However, most of the Park's surface-water resources likely would not be affected by pumping because of either low-permeability rocks or because ground water is sufficiently deep as to not be directly in contact with the streambeds. A memorandum sent by Peter D. Rowley and Gary L. Dixon, Consulting Geologists, to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) on June 29, 2006 was critical of the report. The memorandum by Rowley and Dixon was made available to the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the public during the Nevada State Engineer's 'Evidentiary Exchange' process for the recent hearing on applications for ground-water permits by SNWA in Spring Valley adjacent to Great Basin National Park. The U.S. Geological Survey was asked by the National Park Service to assess the validity of the concerns and comments contained in the Rowley and Dixon memorandum. An Administrative Letter Report responding to Rowley and Dixon's concerns and comments was released to the National Park Service on October 30, 2006. The National Park Service subsequently requested that the contents with three minor changes to the Administrative Letter Report be released to the public. The first paragraph was revised to better explain how the memorandum was brought to the attention of the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey and the purpose of the Administrative Letter Report. The second and third changes were minor word changes to the end of the first sentence at the top of page 11 and in the Summary statement, respectively. The Administrative Letter Report with these minor changes is reproduced herein. Lastly, the National Park Service asked me to explain the difference between potentially and likely susceptible areas used in the report. Admittedly, the report did not clearly explain their usage. Potentially susceptible areas were used in the report to identify areas where (1) ground water interacts with water in the creeks but the connection between permeable rocks in the mountains with the basin fill is uncertain or where (2) ground-water interaction with water in the creeks is less certain but permeable rocks are connected with basin fill. Likely susceptible areas were used to identify areas in the mountains and valleys where ground-water interacts with water in the creeks or discharges as springs and permeable rocks are connected with basin fill. Likely susceptible areas are, therefore, more vulnerable to ground-water pumping.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1976

Geological Survey and selected U.S. Bureau of Mines and Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys reports and maps on Alaska released during 1975, indexed by quadrangle

All Geological Survey reports and maps on Alaska published or released to open files during 1975 are listed by the quadrangles (scale 1:250,000) into which Alaska has been divided for topographic mapping (p. 3). Also listed are U.S. Bureau of Mines reports on the geology and mineral resources of Alaska, but not those that deal exclusively with other subjects such as economics. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys published and open-filed reports and maps that were received by the Alaskan Geology Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey before March 1, 1976 are listed; the availability of several other reports and maps was publicly announced, but the documents were not available to me in time for them to be included here. Most of the reports and maps in this index bear a 1975 imprint date. Others bear earlier imprint dates, but were not released until 1975. All Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys open-file reports and maps were withdrawn in 1974 for revision, consolidation, or assignment of new identification numbers. Those reissued reports and maps that I received before March 1, 1976 are listed in this index, no matter what imprint date they may bear. Also included are a few reports that were released before 1975, but hitherto had escaped my attention. Reports that deal with Alaska as a whole, with areas that can not be identified with a specific quadrangle, or that are mainly statistical presentations are listed under ALASKA - GENERAL, as are indexes and the like. Reports and maps that deal with offshore areas not within quadrangle boundaries are listed under OFFSHORE AREAS. The ALASKA - GENERAL and OFFSHORE AREAS lists appear before the alphabetically arranged quadrangle listings.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

This report is part of an ongoing program that is publishing flood profiles of streams in Iowa. The program is managed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Highway Research Board (Project HR-140). Information from flood profiles is used by engineers to analyze and design bridges, culverts, and roadways. This report summarizes 47 U.S. Geological Survey flood-profile reports that were published for streams in Iowa during a 50-year period from 1963 to 2012. Flood events profiled in the reports range from 1903 to 2010. Streams in Iowa that have been selected for the preparation of flood-profile reports typically have drainage areas of 100 square miles or greater, and the documented flood events have annual exceedance probabilities of less than 2 to 4 percent. This report summarizes flood-profile measurements, changes in flood-profile report content throughout the years, streams that were profiled in the reports, the occurrence of flood events profiled, and annual exceedance-probability estimates of observed flood events. To develop flood profiles for selected flood events for selected stream reaches, the U.S. Geological Survey measured high-water marks and river miles at selected locations. A total of 94 stream reaches have been profiled in U.S. Geological Survey flood-profile reports. Three rivers in Iowa have been profiled along the same stream reach for five different flood events and six rivers in Iowa have been profiled along the same stream reach for four different flood events. Floods were profiled for June flood events for 18 different years, followed by July flood events for 13 years, May flood events for 11 years, and April flood events for 9 years. Most of the flood-profile reports include estimates of annual exceedance probabilities of observed flood events at streamgages located along profiled stream reaches. Comparisons of 179 historic and updated annual exceedance-probability estimates indicate few differences that are considered substantial between the historic and updated estimates for the observed flood events. Overall, precise comparisons for 114 observed flood events indicate that updated annual exceedance probabilities have increased for most of the observed flood events compared to the historic annual exceedance probabilities. Multiple large flood events exceeding the 2-percent annual exceedance-probability discharge estimate occurred at 37 of 98 selected streamgages during 1960–2012. Five large flood events were recorded at two streamgages in Ames during 1990–2010 and four large flood events were recorded at four other streamgages during 1973–2010. Results of Kendall’s tau trend-analysis tests for 35 of 37 selected streamgages indicate that a statistically significant trend is not evident for the 1963–2012 period of record; nor is an overall clear positive or negative trend evident for the 37 streamgages.

Iowa↗
USGS1958

Suggestions to authors of the reports of the United States Geological Survey

Knowledge acquired by the Geological Survey through programs of research and investigations has no value to the public if it remains in office files or in the minds of the scientists and engineers who did the work. The full discharge of the Survey's responsibilities is attained only by making its acquired knowledge available promptly and effectively to all people who will find it of interest and use. And, to insure effectiveness, reports must be not only accurate but so clearly and simply written that they are easy to read and understand. Efforts by the Geological Survey to attain high quality in reports are necessarily group efforts. The largest contribution is made by the author, who has assembled facts, has worked out ideas to explain them, and has a direct personal interest in making the facts and ideas clearly and effectively known. The Geological Survey encourages that interest, recognizing that it is an essential ingredient of the high morale of the members of the Survey. Authors should keep in mind, however, that the Survey has a proprietary interest in all their manuscript reports and as proprietor may dispose of the reports, or require that they be changed before publication, as it sees fit. The Survey generally exercises its proprietary interest only to the extent of seeing that a report is scientifically and technically sound, will reach the proper audience, and will reflect credit on both the Survey and the author. To these ends, each report is reviewed by the author's fellow workers, supervisors, and staff officials, who bring to bear upon it their specialized knowledge, skill, judgement to assure a sound product. In its final form each Survey report is that product of team effort in which many persons do their share -- even though most of them remain anonymous. There is no easy way to prepare reports of high quality, any more than there is an easy means of carrying out research to sure and outstanding conclusions. Each task calls for intensive thinking and for preserving work. The author bears the primary responsibility and correspondingly faces the most difficult task. To aid him is the chief purpose of this volume. The subject matter of this volume is arranged under several principal headings. First, a summary is given of the Survey's publications: the historical basis for them, statistics as to what has been issued in the periods 1879-1957, and a list and description of the several series of reports and maps in which material is being published. Next are outlined successive steps that the author will normally take from the start of a project to his final proofreading of the text and illustrations. Under the third broad heading is brought together much detailed information about the form and content of reports. The fourth part of this volume is devoted to advice on expression -- what to seek and what to avoid. A fifth major part of this volume bears on the most common questions of typographic style that affect Survey publications. The final sections of the volume give instructions for typing manuscript copy and correcting the galley and page proofs; also they include a few useful tables and a discussion of the purpose and content of press releases.

Report↗
USGS2009

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2002-November 30, 2003

A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered in 1954, established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, the Decree authorizes diversions of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from certain reservoirs, owned by New York City, to be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master will furnish reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 50th Annual Report of the River Master of the Delaware River. It covers the 2003 River Master report year; that is, the period from December 1, 2002 to November 30, 2003. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 13.40 inches (131 percent) greater than the long-term average. Combined storage in Pepacton, Cannonsville, and Neversink Reservoirs was above the long-term median on December 1, 2002. Reservoir storage increased rapidly in mid-March 2003 and all the reservoirs filled and spilled. The reservoirs remained nearly full for the remainder of the report year. Delaware River operations throughout the report year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey were in compliance with the Decree. Reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey, on 10 days during the report year. Releases were made at experimental conservation rates—or rates designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs—on all other days. During the report year, New York City and New Jersey complied fully with the terms of the Decree, and directives and requests of the River Master. As part of a long-term program, the quality of water in the Delaware Estuary between Trenton, New Jersey, and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at various locations. Data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites. In addition, selected water-quality data were collected at 3 sites on a monthly basis and at 19 sites on a semi-monthly basis.

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2024

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2014–November 30, 2015

Executive Summary A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954 ( New Jersey v. New York , 347 U.S. 995), established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes the diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from specific reservoirs owned by New York City be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master provide reports to the Court, not less frequently than annually. This report is the 62nd annual report of the River Master of the Delaware River. This report covers the 2015 River Master report year, which is the period from December 1, 2014, to November 30, 2015. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 42.22 inches or 95 percent of the long-term average. The combined storage remained above 80 percent of the combined capacity until August 2015. The lowest combined storage of the report year was 57 percent of the total combined capacity on December 1, 2014. Delaware River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Program. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey fully complied with the Decree. The reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey, on 72 days during the report year. Interim Excess Release Quantity and conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were also made during the report year. Water quality in the Delaware River estuary between the streamgages at Trenton, New Jersey, and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at several locations. Data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

Delaware, New Jersey New York, Pennsylvania↗
USGS2024

Report of the River Master of the Delaware River for the period December 1, 2015 - November 30, 2016

Executive Summary A Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered June 7, 1954 ( New Jersey v. New York , 347 U.S. 995), established the position of Delaware River Master within the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Decree authorizes the diversion of water from the Delaware River Basin and requires compensating releases from reservoirs owned by New York City to be made under the supervision and direction of the River Master. The Decree stipulates that the River Master provide reports to the Court not less frequently than annually. This report is the 63rd annual report of the River Master of the Delaware River. The report covers the 2016 River Master report year, which is the period from December 1, 2015, to November 30, 2016. During the report year, precipitation in the upper Delaware River Basin was 38.6 inches or 87 percent of the long-term average. Combined storage remained high (above 80 percent of combined capacity) for much of the year and did not decline below 80 percent of combined capacity until August 2016. The lowest combined storage was 106.406 billion gallons or 39 percent of combined capacity on November 28, 2016. Delaware River Basin Commission Resolution 2016–07 necessitated a basinwide drought watch on November 23, 2016. The drought watch continued through the remainder of the 2016 report year. Delaware River Master operations during the year were conducted as stipulated by the Decree and the Flexible Flow Management Program. New York City and New Jersey fully complied with the terms of the Decree and, during drought watch conditions, with the Delaware River Basin Commission Resolution 2016–07 terms. Diversions from the Delaware River Basin by New York City and New Jersey fully complied with the Decree. The reservoir releases were made as directed by the River Master at rates designed to meet the flow objective for the Delaware River at Montague, New Jersey, on 126 days during the report year. Interim Excess Release Quantity and conservation releases, designed to relieve thermal stress and protect the fishery and aquatic habitat in the tailwaters of the reservoirs, were also made during the report year. Water quality in the Delaware River estuary between the streamgages at Trenton, New Jersey, and Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, was monitored at several locations. Data on water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH were collected continuously by electronic instruments at four sites.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗
USGS1987

Reflections on writing hydrologic reports

Reporting of scientific work should be characterized by a logical argument that is developed through presentation of the problem, tabulation and display of data pertinent to the problem , and testing and interpretation of the data to prove hypotheses that address the problem. Organization of the report is vital to developing this logical argument: it provides structure, continuity, logic, and emphasis to the presentation. Each part of the report serves a specific function and each is linked by a connecting logic, the logical argument of the report. Each scientific report normally has a title, table of contents, abstract, introduction, body (of the report), and summary and/or conclusions. Organization of sections within the body of the report is exactly parallel to overall organization; subjects presented in the section title are developed by logical subdivisions and pertinent discussion. The summary and/or conclusions section culminates the logical argument of the report by drawing together and quantitatively reiterating the principal conclusions developed in the discussion. Supplemental information on report content, background of the study, additional data or details on procedures, and other information of interest to the reader is presented in the foreward or preface, list of illustrations or tables, glossaries, and appendixes. (Lantz-PTT)

Open-File Report↗
USGS1999

Method for Examination and Documentation of Basic Information and Metadata from Published Reports Relevant to the Study of Stormwater Runoff Quality

A readily accessible archive of information that is valid, current, and technically defensible is needed to make informed highway-planning, design, and management decisions. The National Highway Runoff Water-Quality Data and Methodology Synthesis (NDAMS) is a cataloging and assessment of the documentation of information relevant to highway-runoff water quality available in published reports. The report review process is based on the NDAMS review sheet, which was designed by the USGS with input from the FHWA, State transportation agencies, and the regulatory community. The report-review process is designed to determine the technical merit of the existing literature in terms of current requirements for data documentation, data quality, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), and technical issues that may affect the use of historical data. To facilitate the review process, the NDAMS review sheet is divided into 12 sections: (1) administrative review information, (2) investigation and report information, (3) temporal information, (4) location information (5) water-quality-monitoring information, (6) sample-handling methods, (7) constituent information, (8) sampling focus and matrix, (9) flow monitoring methods, (10) field QA/QC, (11) laboratory, and (12) uncertainty/error analysis. This report describes the NDAMS report reviews and metadata documentation methods and provides an overview of the approach and of the quality-assurance and quality-control program used to implement the review process. Detailed information, including a glossary of relevant terms, a copy of the report-review sheets, and reportreview instructions are completely documented in a series of three appendixes included with this report. Therefore the reviews are repeatable and the methods can be used by transportation research organizations to catalog new reports as they are published.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2014

Updated study reporting levels (SRLs) for trace-element data collected for the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Priority Basin Project, October 2009-March 2013

Groundwater samples have been collected in California as part of statewide investigations of groundwater quality conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey for the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP is being conducted in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board to assess and monitor the quality of groundwater resources used for drinking-water supply and to improve public knowledge of groundwater quality in California. Quality-control samples (source-solution blanks, equipment blanks, and field blanks) were collected in order to ensure the quality of the groundwater sample results. Olsen and others (2010) previously determined study reporting levels (SRLs) for trace-element results based primarily on field blanks collected in California from May 2004 through January 2008. SRLs are raised reporting levels used to reduce the likelihood of reporting false detections attributable to contamination bias. The purpose of this report is to identify any changes in the frequency and concentrations of detections in field blanks since the last evaluation and update the SRLs for more recent data accordingly. Constituents analyzed were aluminum (Al), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), boron (B), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), strontium (Sr), thallium (Tl), tungsten (W), uranium (U), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn). Data from 179 field blanks and equipment blanks collected from March 2006 through March 2013 by the GAMA-PBP indicated that for trace elements that had a change in detection frequency and concentration since the previous review, the shift occurred near October 2009, in conjunction with a change in the capsule filters used by the study. Results for 89 field blanks and equipment blanks collected from October 2009 through March 2013 were evaluated for potential contamination bias by using the same approach developed by Olsen and others (2010). Some data collected by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program for the Southern California Coastal Drainages study unit were included to supplement the GAMA-PBP data. The detection frequency and upper threshold of potential contamination bias (BD-90/90) were determined from field-blank and equipment-blank data for each trace element. The BD-90/90 is the 90th percentile concentration of potential extrinsic contamination calculated by using the binomial probability distribution for greater than 90 percent confidence. Additionally, data from laboratory blanks and blind blanks analyzed by the National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) during water years 2010 through 2013, and compiled by the USGS Branch of Quality Systems (BQS), were considered for each trace element. These results were compared to each constituent’s reporting level to determine whether an SRL was necessary to minimize the potential for detections in the groundwater samples, attributed principally to contamination bias. Results of the evaluation were used to set SRLs for trace-element data for about 1,135 samples of groundwater collected by the GAMA-PBP between October 2009 and March 2013. Ten trace elements analyzed (Sb, As, Be, B, Cd, Li, Se, Ag, Tl, and U) had blank results that did not necessitate establishing SRLs during this review or the review by Olsen and others (2010). Five trace elements analyzed (Al, Ba, Cr, Sr, and V) had blank results that necessitated establishing an SRL during the previous review but did not need an SRL starting October 2009. One trace element (Fe) had field and laboratory-blank results that necessitated keeping the previous SRL (6 micrograms per liter [μg/L]). Two trace elements (Ni and W) had quality-control results that warranted decreasing the previous SRL, and five trace elements (Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, and Zn) had field, laboratory, or blind blank results that warranted establishing an SRL for the first time or increasing the previous SRL. SRLs for Cu (2.1 μg/L), Pb (0.82 μg/L), Mn (0.66 μg/L), Mo (0.023 μg/L), Ni (0.21 μg/L), W (0.023 μg/L), and Zn (6.2 μg/L) were changed to these levels starting October 2009, based on the BD-90/90 concentration for field blanks or the 99th percentile concentration for laboratory or blind blanks. The SRL for Fe was maintained at 6 μg/L, based on the minimum laboratory reporting level for iron. SRLs for these eight constituents were at least an order of magnitude below the regulatory benchmarks established for drinking water for health and aesthetic purposes; therefore, the practice of reporting concentrations below the SRLs as less than or equal to (≤) the measured value would not prevent the identification of values greater than the drinking-water benchmarks. Co was detected in 99 percent of field blanks, and with a BD-90/90 concentration of 0.38 μg/L, all groundwater results starting October 2009 were coded as “reviewed and rejected.” Co does not currently have a regulatory benchmark for drinking water. The primary sources of contamination for trace elements inferred from this review are the equipment or processes used in the field to collect the samples or in the laboratory. In particular, contamination in field blanks of Co and Mn was attributed to the high-capacity 0.45-micrometer pore-size capsule filters that were in regular use beginning in October 2009 by several USGS programs, including the GAMA-PBP and NAWQA Program, for filtering samples for analysis of trace elements. The SRLs determined in this report are intended to be used for GAMA groundwater-quality data for samples collected October 2009 through March 2013, or for as long as quality-control data indicate contamination similar to what was observed in this report; quality-control data should be continuously reviewed and SRLs re-assessed on at least a study-unit basis.

California↗
USGS2018

Comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation water-use reporting in the Colorado River Basin

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State, and Federal entities develop, compile, and report water-use data, which can lead to confusing or conflicting information. This report was authored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to compare and contrast the two agencies’ water-use information programs in the Colorado River Basin. The report also describes the legal drivers for each program, clarifies confusing terminology, compares the methods used, and contrasts the information reported by each agency. This detailed comparison demonstrates that these two Federal agencies have different missions, different programmatic drivers, and different user communities, all of which lead to different approaches to water-use data collection, analysis, and reporting. This report highlights those differences and explains why the USGS and Reclamation programs exist and how the data serve different user communities. Even though the two water-use programs are different by design and purpose, the program comparison presented in this report has identified opportunities for closer coordination and sharing of information between the USGS and Reclamation, as well as program components where agency collaboration can improve water-use estimate methodologies. This comparison effort emphasizes that it is incumbent upon each agency to clearly define the meaning of the terms used and the appropriate application of the reported information to avoid confusion or the accidental misuse of the information. An additional benefit of this comparison effort is the formation of a joint USGS/Reclamation water-use team that will continue to investigate opportunities to expand and coordinate future water-use data compilation and reporting.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS1955

Geologic investigations of radioactive deposits, semiannual progress report for June 1 to November 30, 1955

This report is a statement of progress during the six-months period from June 1 to November 30, 1955 on investigations of radioactive materials in the United States and Alaska, undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey under the sponsorship of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. During the period the Geological Survey's program has been directed to an increasing extent toward the understanding of geologic conditions favorable for the concentration of uranium, rather than the search for minable deposits as such. This shift in emphasis is reflected in the decreased amount of exploration drilling during the period, and the accompanying increase in geologic programs of a long-range nature. The program is now directed toward a comprehensive understanding of the many factors involved in uranium geology, and the publication of reports that will make available information on all phases of the uranium program. Many investigations have progressed to the point where final reports are in preparation for future publication with the permission of the Atomic Energy Commission; for other investigations of a continuing nature it will be several years before final reports can be prepared. Formal publications (as distinguished from administrative Trace Elements Reports) published during the period include 10 Geological Survey Bulletins or Bulletin Chapters; 116 Geological Survey maps; 15 reports published in scientific journals; seven Trace Elements Reports sent to the Technical Information Service of the Atomic Energy Commission for distribution and sale to the public; and four Trace Elements reports placed on open file. In addition, a large number •of papers by geologists in the program were presented before scientific societies, and the 61 papers prepared for the United Nations International Conference .on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy during the preceding report period were published by the United Nations.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2013

Wildfire and invasive species in the west: challenges that hinder current and future management and protection of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: a Gap Report

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to satisfy the 45-day report requirement identified in Cooperative Agreement (F13AC00353) between WAFWA and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submit this “Gap Report”. This report summarizes the policy, fiscal and science challenges that land managers encounter related to the control and reduction of the invasive plant/fire complex, especially as it relates to the threaten or endangered species listing status of the Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ). While this Gap Report identifies 22 technical, policy, planning and funding gaps, it should be considered a “work in-progress”. To address this effort a Wildfire/Invasive Initiative Work Group (WG) was formed. The WG consist of nationally recognized experts in fire ecology, Sage-grouse ecology and management, range management and plant ecology. The WG developed this Gap Report and will be developing the final report for this Cooperative Agreement. Thus, as the WG evaluates the wildfire/invasive issue and makes recommendation to address scientific and management shortcomings, additional gaps will be identified and included in the final report. Within this report, the WG has suggested the top 5 gaps. However, the actual priority of what should be addressed first will depend on the significance and sequence of the limiting factor, available funding, current work, roles and responsibilities of the specific agencies, etc. The WG will continue to meet on a regular basis to further develop and expand this list of gaps. Additionally, the WG will offer specific options to address the identified gaps. However, the WG recommends that the FWS, possibly through the State/Federal (Western Governors Association) Sage Grouse Task Force or the National Sage-grouse Executive Oversight Committee, establish a Subcommittee to specifically review this Gap Report and develop a multi-agency approach on how to address each gap. The WG will continue to endeavor to establish a priority list and identify the “low hanging fruit” that can be addressed in the short-term to affect the listing decision. Additionally, the WG will propose a longer-term strategy. However, to successfully establish such a strategy it will take buy-in and commitment at the highest levels in federal and state governments. In an effort to provide managers an opportunity to address the most important issues this coming fiscal year, we offer the following top 5 gaps. Beyond these top 5, the WG has identified 17 additional gaps that should be evaluated by both federal and state agencies as a means to help better manage the wildfire/invasive threat in the west.

Report↗
USGS2021

Genetic diversity is considered important but interpreted narrowly in country reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Current actions and indicators are insufficient

International agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have committed to conserve, and sustainably and equitably use, biodiversity. The CBD is a vital instrument for global conservation because it guides 195 countries and the European Union in setting priorities and allocating resources, and requires regular reporting on progress. However, the CBD and similar policy agreements have often neglected genetic diversity. This is a critical gap because genetic diversity underlies adaptation to environmental change and ecosystem resilience. Here we aim to inform future policy, monitoring, and reporting efforts focused on limiting biodiversity loss by conducting the largest yet evaluation of how Parties to the CBD report on genetic diversity. A large, globally representative sample of 114 CBD National Reports was examined to assess reported actions, progress, values and indicators related to genetic diversity. Although the importance of genetic diversity is recognized by most Parties to the CBD, genetic diversity targets mainly addressed variation within crops and livestock (a small fraction of all species). Reported actions to conserve genetic diversity primarily concerned ex situ facilities and legislation, rather than monitoring and in situ intervention. The most commonly reported status indicators are not well correlated to maintaining genetic diversity. Lastly, few reports mentioned genetic monitoring using DNA data, indigenous use and knowledge of genetic diversity, or development of strategies to conserve genetic diversity. We make several recommendations for the post-2020 CBD Biodiversity Framework, and similar efforts such as IPBES, to improve awareness, assessment, and monitoring of genetic diversity, and facilitate consistent and complete reporting in the future.

Biological Conservation↗