Geology topics

Research about Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition—Working collaboratively to understand the geology of the Great Lakes Region

Introduction The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), commonly referred to as the “Coalition,” is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario. The member States receive funding for geologic mapping work from the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), whereas Ontario participates as a nonfunded partner. The mission of the GLGMC is to produce three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps that depict unconsolidated sediments and near-surface bedrock in the Great Lakes region of North America. Geologic maps are the basis of most earth science investigations and help support resource exploration (energy, minerals, groundwater), natural hazard mitigation, infrastructure development, and land-use planning, all of which can be used to advance economic development and strengthen national security in the Great Lakes region. During the last few million years, the Great Lakes region has experienced repeated glacial advances and retreats, leaving behind extensive sediments, abundant natural resources, and widespread effects on the underlying bedrock geology (Swezey and others, 2022). Linked by shared histories of past glaciations, industrial agriculture, and legacy automotive, coal, steel, and manufacturing industries, the GLGMC member States collaborate to improve the understanding of the 3D distribution of the sediments overlying the region’s bedrock (fig. 1). Developing a comprehensive subsurface 3D framework of this glaciated terrain can provide earth science data to policymakers at all levels. These insights facilitate informed decisions on the exploration, use, and protection of vital resources, such as critical minerals, industrial materials, and aquifers, thereby supporting economic prosperity and the well-being of the citizens of this region. Since its inception in 1998, the Coalition has completed more than 100 geologic mapping projects across the Great Lakes region. Each project aims to deliver geologic maps, 3D datasets, and other information that improves understanding of the geology of the Great Lakes region, with an emphasis on economic and water resources. Key deliverables include 3D geologic maps and models typically portraying sediment thickness, often derived from top-of-bedrock and borehole data. These products are developed through a combination of fieldwork, subsurface modeling, and the collection and analysis of rock and sediment cores. To support Coalition goals, member States collaborate with scientists working on related STATEMAP, EDMAP, and FEDMAP projects. Coalition scientists also engage with Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to ensure that Tribal interests pertaining to Coalition work are addressed. Through this collaboration, the Coalition unites the efforts of State, Federal, and Tribal Nation stakeholders to advance geologic data production and enhance understanding of the geologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2026

Quality and quantity of terrestrial landscape connectivity in the US Great Lakes Coastal Zone

Context The Great Lakes Coastal Zone (GLCZ), the world’s longest continuous freshwater coastline, consists of interspersed natural and developed landcover and is inhabited by millions of people. Anthropogenic change fragments the GLCZ, decreasing landscape connectivity. Objectives We evaluated functional landscape connectivity of the U.S. GLCZ, assessing regional connectivity, protected areas’ effects on connectivity, and identified pinchpoints where connectivity is most vulnerable. Methods We modeled landscape connectivity to describe corridors and redundant pathways for two scenarios: (1) continuous terrestrial habitat patches and (2) protected areas. We compared these two scenarios by total corridor area and quality at two spatial scales (coastal zone and ecoregion). We used random forest analyses to examine how ecological factors influenced the connectivity rank and pinchpoint values. A principal components analysis identified how land cover influenced connectivity among ecoregions. Results The GLCZ was 69% connected. Although 91% of the GLCZ’s high-quality habitat was within corridors, less than 50% of the corridor area was high-quality (low resistance to movement). While the northernmost region retained high-quality connectivity, connectivity loss and degradation increased with development further south. Corridors between protected areas provided less connectivity, of worse quality, in areas of development and agriculture. Lower connectivity was associated with higher impervious surface cover. Conclusions Protected area placement affected both the quantity and quality of connectivity. Improving and maintaining functional connectivity could be accomplished by strategically restoring and protecting habitats most vulnerable to connectivity loss, predominantly in urban and agricultural regions. Our connectivity improvement index is a useful tool to identify areas where connectivity may be improved.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2024

Potential hazards of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Great Lakes tributaries using water column and porewater passive samplers and sediment wquilibrium partitioning

The potential for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-related effects in benthic organisms is commonly estimated from organic carbon-normalized sediment concentrations based on equilibrium partitioning (EqP). Although this approach is useful for screening purposes, it may overestimate PAH bioavailability by orders of magnitude in some sediments, leading to inflated exposure estimates and potentially unnecessary remediation costs. Recently, passive samplers have been shown to provide an accurate assessment of the freely dissolved concentrations of PAHs, and thus their bioavailability and possible biological effects, in sediment porewater and overlying surface water. We used polyethylene passive sampling devices (PEDs) to measure freely dissolved porewater and water column PAH concentrations at 55 Great Lakes (USA/Canada) tributary locations. The potential for PAH-related biological effects using PED concentrations were estimated with multiple approaches by applying EqP, water quality guidelines, and pathway-based biological activity based on in vitro bioassay results from ToxCast. Results based on the PED-based exposure estimates were compared with EqP-derived exposure estimates for concurrently collected sediment samples. The results indicate a potential overestimation of bioavailable PAH concentrations by up to 960-fold using the EqP-based method compared with measurements using PEDs. Even so, PED-based exposure estimates indicate a high potential for PAH-related biological effects at 14 locations. Our findings provide an updated, weight-of-evidence–based site prioritization to help guide possible future monitoring and mitigation efforts.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2022

Green infrastructure in the Great Lakes—Assessment of performance, barriers, and unintended consequences

The Great Lakes Basin covers around 536,393 square kilometers, and the Great Lakes hold more than 5,400 cubic miles of water, accounting for more than 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water supply. The Great Lakes provide a source of drinking water to tens of millions of people in Canada and the United States and support one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. Increasing urbanization combined with aging infrastructure and more extreme storm events because of changing weather patterns creates stormwater management challenges for communities across the Great Lakes region. A variety of green infrastructure (GI) practices, designed to decrease runoff and improve water quality, have been implemented throughout the region in response to these challenges; however, implementation often remains limited to local efforts and with little coordination among various levels of government because of, at least in part, a lack of clear standards for stormwater, limited funding, and a general uncertainty in the type and expected performance of these practices. City planners, engineers, and political leaders often see GI investment as riskier than other alternatives despite studies that determined, in most cases, practices can either reduce or not affect costs. This report summarizes selected published reports and data sources from studies done in Great Lakes states and compares the measured effects of various GI practices and their applicability in different settings around the Great Lakes. By summarizing selected published reports and data sources from studies done in Great Lakes states, this report provides foundational information for U.S. Geological Survey scientists and their local and national partners to assess the ability of GI to reduce stormwater runoff in Great Lakes urban areas. GI includes a variety of stormwater management techniques designed to mimic natural hydrologic processes like infiltration and evapotranspiration, which can decrease the volume of water running into sewers and streams. It can also improve water quality by trapping sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants. A variety of landscape practices can be incorporated into urban areas as GI, but the discussion here is limited to vegetated basins, vegetated channels, permeable pavement, urban tree canopy, and green roofs. Other types of GI, such as downspout disconnection, rainwater harvesting, and wet and dry detention basins were not included because hydrologic function and associated components are not widely monitored or evaluated in literature.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2018

Measuring and evaluating ecological flows from streams to regions: Steps towards national coverage

Living aquatic communities are largely determined and maintained by the volume and quality of flowing waters, both within lotic systems and in receiving waters of coastal systems. However, flow is one of the most frequently and extensively altered features of rivers and streams; alteration effects are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Lotic systems vary and different fish species need different environmental conditions, and distinct problems are evident at various spatial scales. New synoptic flow and biological information now make it possible to evaluate the effects of altered flows throughout the Great Lakes Region at scales from the stream reach to the Region. We used estimates of river and streamflow and observed fish abundances to develop tools that specify the response of fish to alterations in those flows. We fit the logistic model to a cumulative fish abundance curve as a function of yield providing an empirical means to develop models of the response of cumulative fish abundance to flows. Response zones of yield for each species in each system type (based on size and thermal class) illustrate how criteria may be developed that can be used in decision‐making for management of flows. In our example application, we evaluate both the general response of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ) abundances (and fish diversity) to changes in flows and assess the sensitivity of each stream fish community to flow alteration. Mapping stream sensitivity to flow alteration throughout the US Great Lakes Region with a multiscale spatial framework showed how regional variability in sensitivity for any fish species or assemblage may be evaluated and provides managers with information to help determine where the best opportunities for protection or restoration of streamflows and associated communities exist. These results provide valuable tools and critical information to managers responsible for balancing water uses and maintaining high quality lotic ecosystems. These methods may be applied to any geographic region and can be extended nationally or globally, where flow, temperature, fish and landscape data are available.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS1978

Summary appraisals of the nation's ground-water resources – Great Lakes region

The Great Lakes Regions, as a whole, has abundant supplies of water. Nearly 805,000 billion cubic feet of water is contained in the Great Lakes. An additional 35,000 billion cubic feet of potable ground water is available from storage in the region. Estimated ground-water discharge to the streams and lakes of the region is 26 billion gallons per day. Despite this abundance of water, the United States part of the Great Lakes basin is faced with many water-related problems, most of which involve water quality and water supply. Other problems concern periods of low flow in streams, preservation of wetlands, detrimental effects of erosion, and flooding. The significance of ground water in these problems is often overlooked. Ground water can be an alternative to surface water as a source of supply, or it can be used conjunctively with surface water to provide flexibility in water-supply management. Ground water supplied approximately 1,800 million gallons per day of the 39,900 million gallons. per day used in the Great Lakes Region in 1970. The ground-water contribution was only 4.5 percent of the water used. Thus, ground water represents a potential source of supply for much of the region. It also can be used, where conditions permit, to maintain lake levels and flow in streams, to dilute poor quality surface water, and to maintain or create wetlands and ponds. In managing water resources, ground water and surface water should be considered parts of a single system. Management includes not only planning and controlling the development but also monitoring the effects of this development. Recent advances in ground-water hydrology have provided methods to resolve some of the development and management questions that formerly slowed the development of ground water. All of the States in the Great Lakes Region have some regulations to control the development or protect the quality of the ground water. These regulations, however, are not as comprehensive as those governing surface water. Future legislation could be designed to encourage the development of ground water and, at the same time, to protect the resource. Efficient development and management of ground-water resources requires a through knowledge of the system. Reports on ground water are available for about 80 percent of tbe Great Lakes Region. Most of these reports, however, are not sufficiently detailed to be useful in comprehensive planning. As ground-water development continues, quantitative groundwater studies, utilizing models as predictive tools, will enable this development to proceed in an efficient manner.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗