Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Mitchell R. Weaver

Publications and source records attributed to Mitchell R. Weaver.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Sediment response to stream restoration in an agricultural watershed

Despite widespread implementation of stream restoration there is limited research of its effectiveness in impaired agricultural settings. To quantify the effects of stream restoration on sediment load, we investigated erosion and deposition along 9 stream reach sites (4 restored, 4 unrestored, and 1 downstream) in Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania, United States - a representative agricultural subbasin of the Chesapeake Bay. These stream restoration projects had the goal of reducing sediment load primarily by installing log structures and regrading streambanks in order to stabilize streambanks and reconnect floodplains. Floodplain and streambank sediment fluxes were quantified over a 3-year period through repeated measurement of clay pads and pins and measurement of sediment bulk density. Uncrewed aerial imagery was collected at 3 of the sites, then processed using structure from motion (SfM) to create high-resolution digital elevation models. Terrain analysis enabled three-dimensional understanding of the generality of the specific field flux measurement locations to the larger stream reach. Restored sites on average had deposition on streambanks compared to streambank erosion along unrestored sites, and approximately two times greater floodplain deposition than unrestored sites. Overall, restored stream had an average seven-fold increase in the net balance (sum of streambank and floodplain) of sediment flux, a 81.2 kg/m/yr increase in retention, compared to unrestored stream. The measured larger streambed particle size distribution (D 50 ) in restored streams also suggests additional improvements to instream habitat quality. Terrain analysis confirmed that the field-based measurements were representative of the larger reach. These results indicate that stream restoration in agricultural watersheds using less-engineered designs can reduce sediment loading and improve stream habitat and health goals.

Pennsylvania↗

Estimation and comparison of 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood flows at Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance study flow locations across Pennsylvania

Flood-flow estimates were computed at over 5,000 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance study (FIS) flow locations across Pennsylvania for the 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood event (1-percent AEP). Depending on a point of interest’s proximity to a streamgage, weighting techniques may be applied to obtain flood-flow estimates for ungaged flow locations using observed peak-flow data from a nearby streamgage. Following the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) published guidance, stream segments were identified where the drainage-area ratio method could be leveraged. Using updated regional regression equations and recently published flood-flow estimates at USGS streamgage locations following USGS Bulletin 17C guidelines, weighted and transferred flood flows were computed, where appropriate. For locations not applicable for the drainage-area ratio method, regression equations were used to compute flood-flow estimates. These flood-flow estimates were then compared to FEMA FIS 1-percent AEP flood-flow estimates. Percentage-difference values were computed for 3,599 FIS flow locations determined to be suitable for analysis, finding that USGS-derived flood-flow estimates were consistently lower than FEMA FIS flood-flow estimates with a statewide median percentage difference of −10.1 percent. The dataset was normally distributed with a standard deviation of 45.7 percent. Allegheny County was found to have 74 FIS flow locations with percentage-difference values greater than or equal to 67 percent or less than or equal to −67 percent. The flood-flow region in which Allegheny County is contained, Region 2, had a median percentage-difference value of −39 percent. Although removed from the final analysis, flow locations with drainage-area values above the recommended threshold for regression-based estimation (about 1,000 square miles [mi 2 ]) were observed to have consistently higher percentage-difference values; a reminder of the limitations of use for regression-based flood-flow estimates. This report, the comparisons within, and a companion data release are intended to serve as tools to FEMA in assisting with the ongoing assessment of FIS flow locations across Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania↗

Hydrogeology, karst, and groundwater availability of Monroe County, West Virginia

Monroe County is in southeastern West Virginia, encompassing an area of 474 square miles. The area consists of karst and siliciclastic aquifers of Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Mississippian age and is in parts of two physiographic provinces: the Valley and Ridge Province to the east of Peters Mountain, and the Appalachian Plateau Province to the west of Peters Mountain. This study was developed in response to inquiries from the Monroe County Commission requesting assessment of the water resources of the county to better understand the quantity of the county’s groundwater resources, for both current [2023] and future demand, and to provide information to support protection and management of the county’s valuable groundwater resources. Various products were developed for this study that provide knowledge with respect to water availability and contamination susceptibility of the karst aquifers within the county. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologists conducted extensive geologic mapping in support of the project, producing (1) a countywide bedrock geologic map, (2) a countywide hydrogeologic map, and (3) a light detection and ranging (lidar)-derived countywide digital elevation model and associated sinkhole map. A significant part of this work was to map in detail the Greenbrier Group at the formation level, which prior to this study had only partially been completed. The report also includes (4) a description of the lithologic units identified as part of the geologic mapping process. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists completed several additional products for the hydrology part of the effort, including development of (1) a countywide potentiometric surface (water-table) map, (2) a countywide base-flow stream assessment, (3) countywide water-budget estimates, (4) well log surveys for 15 wells to better understand subsurface controls on groundwater flow within the study area, (5) two groundwater tracer tests to better refine the groundwater divide from the northern and southern parts of the karst aquifer in Monroe County; and finally, based on all available data collected for the study including the potentiometric surface map, geologic map, current [2023] and legacy fluorometric groundwater tracer tests, and base-flow stream assessments, (6) groundwater-basin delineations were reassessed for principal groundwater basins within the Greenbrier aquifer. In Monroe County, four principal hydrogeologic settings produce large yields of water for residential, agricultural, and other uses. The most relied upon water-bearing zone with respect to current [2023] public water supply is from springs along Peters Mountain. These springs are derived from intervals of fractured sandstone and resultant alluvial deposits. Groundwater flows downslope through these permeable alluvial deposits and discharges at the contact with less permeable strata, such as the Reedsville Shale. The second most relied upon water-bearing zone in Monroe County is within the karstic Greenbrier Group aquifer, in which the basal Hillsdale Limestone overlies the less permeable Maccrady Shale. This geologic contact between the Hillsdale Limestone and Maccrady Shale is not only targeted as a source of water for agricultural supply but also is targeted as a source of water for residential supply. The third most relied upon water-bearing zone is composed of shallow perched aquifers within the Greenbrier Group. The discontinuous nature of these perched aquifers makes mapping their extent impossible, but they are related to permeable geologic strata, such as karstified limestones with solutionally enhanced permeability that overlies less permeable shale or chert bedrock. During geologic mapping of the county, several of these perched aquifers were documented in the Pickaway, Union, and Alderson Limestones. A fourth zone consists of springs from Ordovician carbonates at the base of Peters Mountain, which are influenced by sinking streams as well as upwelling along faults. In terms of water quantity, the most sustainable springs are those having deeper-sourced flows. Public supplies are a principal source of water used for residential and commercial supply in the region, accounting for 0.49 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of fresh-water withdrawals (0.14 Mgal/d of groundwater and 0.35 Mgal/d of surface water) for residential and commercial use and serving 6,645 individuals (49.2 percent of the population). An estimated 6,861 people, (50.8 percent of the population) primarily rely on private wells or other unregulated sources, such as springs, and withdraw 0.55 Mgal/d of groundwater for their residential use. Public water supply in the region is primarily (71.4 percent) derived from springs and augmented by stream withdrawals (backup sources mainly during low-flow periods), with the remaining portion (28.6 percent) derived from groundwater withdrawals from wells. For rural residents, however, 100 percent of their withdrawals are derived from groundwater (wells or springs).

West Virginia↗

Characterization of peak streamflows and flooding in select areas of Pennsylvania from the remnants of Hurricane Ida, September 1–2, 2021

Pennsylvania experienced heavy rainfall on September 1 and 2, 2021, as the remnants of Hurricane Ida swept over parts of the State. Much of eastern and south-central Pennsylvania received 5 to 10 inches of rain, and most of the rainfall fell within little more than 6 hours. Southeastern Pennsylvania experienced widespread, substantial flooding, and the city of Philadelphia and surrounding areas were particularly affected by the flooding. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamgages registered peak streamflows of record at 19 locations, and 52 locations experienced top 5 peak streamflows for the period of record and an annual exceedance probability estimate of at least 10 percent. During this September 2021 flood event, USGS personnel made over 60 streamflow measurements at streamgages in Pennsylvania using direct and indirect methods. Many of those streamflow measurements were made to verify or improve the accuracy, extent, or development of new stage-streamflow relations at streamgages operated by the USGS. After the floodwaters receded, USGS personnel identified and documented a total of 338 high-water marks in Pennsylvania, noting such things as their general description, location, height above land surface, and quality. Many of these high-water marks were used to create five flood-documentation maps for selected communities in southeastern Pennsylvania that experienced substantial flooding because of the remnants of Hurricane Ida. Digital datasets of the inundated areas, mapped boundaries, and water depth are available (Stuckey and Conlon, 2023).

Pennsylvania↗