SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Southeastern Geographer”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

184 records · Page 11Linked to original sources

USGS2003

Potential for deep basin-centered gas accumulation in Travis Peak (Hosston) Formation, Gulf Coast Basin, U.S.A.

The potential of Lower Cretaceous sandstones of the Travis Peak Formation in the northern Gulf Coast Basin to harbor a basin-centered gas accumulation was evaluated by examining (1) the depositional and diagenetic history and reservoir properties of Travis Peak sandstones, (2) the presence and quality of source rocks for generating gas, (3) the burial and thermal history of source rocks and time of gas generation and migration relative to tectonic development of Travis Peak traps, (4) gas and water recoveries from drill-stem and formation tests, (5) the distribution of abnormal pressures based on shut-in-pressure data, and (6) the presence or absence of gas-water contacts associated with gas accumulations in Travis Peak sandstones. The Travis Peak Formation (and correlative Hosston Formation) is a basinward-thickening wedge of terrigenous clastic sedimentary rocks that underlies the northern Gulf Coast Basin from eastern Texas across northern Louisiana to southern Mississippi. Clastic influx was focused in two main fluvial-deltaic depocenters—one located in northeastern Texas and the other in southeastern Mississippi and northeastern Louisiana. Across the main hydrocarbon-productive trend in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana, the Travis Peak Formation is about 2,000 ft thick. Most Travis Peak hydrocarbon production in eastern Texas comes from drilling depths between 6,000 and 10,000 ft. Significant decrease in porosity and permeability occurs through that depth interval. Above 8,000-ft drilling depth in eastern Texas, Travis Peak sandstone matrix permeabilities often are significantly higher than the 0.1-millidarcy (mD) cutoff that characterizes tight-gas reservoirs. Below 8,000 ft, matrix permeability of Travis Peak sandstones is low because of pervasive quartz cementation, but abundant natural fractures impart significant fracture permeability. Although pressure data within the middle and lower Travis Peak Formation are limited in eastern Texas, overpressured reservoirs caused by thermal generation of gas, typical of basin-centered gas accumulations, are not common in the Travis Peak Formation. Significant overpressure was found in only one Travis Peak sandstone reservoir in 1 of 24 oil and gas fields examined across eastern Texas and northern Louisiana. The presence of gas-water contacts is perhaps the most definitive criterion indicating that a gas accumulation is conventional rather than a “sweet spot” within a basin-centered gas accumulation. Hydrocarbon-water contacts within Travis Peak sandstone reservoirs were documented in 17 fields and probably occur in considerably more fields across the productive Travis Peak trend in eastern Texas and northern Louisiana. All known hydrocarbon-water contacts in Travis Peak reservoirs in eastern Texas, however, occur within sandstones in the upper 500 ft of the formation. Although no gas-water contacts have been reported within the lower three-fourths of the Travis Peak Formation in northeastern Texas, gas production from that interval is limited. The best available data suggest that most middle and lower Travis Peak sandstones are water bearing in northeastern Texas. Insufficient hydrocarbon charge relative to permeability of Travis Peak reservoirs might be responsible for lack of overpressure and basin-centered gas within the Travis Peak Formation. Shales interbedded with Travis Peak sandstones in eastern Texas are primarily oxidized flood-plain deposits with insufficient organic-carbon content to be significant sources of oil and gas. The most likely source rocks for hydrocarbons in Travis Peak reservoirs are two stratigraphically lower units, the Jurassic-age Bossier Shale of the Cotton Valley Group, and laminated, lime mudstones of the Jurassic Smackover Formation. Hydrocarbon charge, therefore, might be sufficient for development of conventional gas accumulations, but it is insufficient for development of basin-centered gas as a result of the absence of proximal source rocks and a lack of effective migration pathways from stratigraphically or geographically distant source rocks.

Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas↗

USGS2025

North American Waterfowl Management Plan survey regional profile—Southeast region

Executive Summary Gaining a better understanding of the human dimensions of waterfowl management to inform the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a valuable but challenging goal for the future success of waterfowl management. Increasing engagement with key stakeholder groups will lead to more support and effective waterfowl management. Social systems are complex because individual values and preferences may vary across geographic and cultural dimensions, so it is valuable to describe those differences rather than only looking at national-scale trends. Therefore, using broad engagement strategies that do not consider the differences among regional groups may do more harm than good. This study analyzed a subset of responses from waterfowl hunters (hereafter respondents) in the Southeast region of the United States from a national-scale survey (Patton, 2018). This study compared how respondents’ opinions differed among two subsections of the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways—the Atlantic subflyway and Mississippi subflyway—and responses from the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway had a primary home ZIP Code in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi. Investigating these differences provides waterfowl managers decision-making support and a better understanding of how perceptions may differ among respondents in the Southeast region and the Nation. Responses from each group are presented for each for each survey topic, and statistical tests of homogeneity are included to inform how the differences may be considered when managing for waterfowl and waterfowl hunting. Respondents from the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways did not differ substantially except in their perceptions and preferences of waterfowl harvest and harvest regulations. Respondents from the Mississippi subflyway consistently reported a higher average harvest of ducks and geese, emphasized the importance of higher harvest for their satisfaction with waterfowl hunting, and typically placed a greater emphasis on regulatory decisions that facilitated increased harvest opportunity than respondents from the Atlantic subflyway. This emphasis was especially true when preferring species-specific limits more than simpler aggregate limits. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway were in direct opposition to respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and preferred the opportunity for increased harvest that species-specific bag limits provide. Respondents in the Mississippi subflyway placed greater emphasis on harvest and larger bag limits compared with respondents in the Atlantic subflyway and the national survey. Respondents in the Atlantic subflyway often aligned with the national survey respondents’ perceptions of harvest that placed a lower emphasis on the number of ducks or geese harvested in comparison to Mississippi subflyway respondents. The Atlantic and Mississippi subflyway respondents reported hunting ducks and geese to a much lower degree than the national survey respondents, who favored only hunting ducks or hunting neither ducks nor geese. Similarly, respondents in the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways reported that overcrowding, high hunting pressure, and interference from other respondents limited their participation to a higher degree than respondents from the national survey. The trip-specific preferences for waterfowl hunting in the Southeast region were calculated using latent class analysis and three groups were determined based on individual estimates of attribute importance: generalist, seclusionist, and harvest oriented. The generalist group did not place a high degree of importance on any one attribute and was most likely to choose to not participate given suboptimal conditions. The seclusionist group placed a high degree of importance on lower levels of competition from other groups and felt their well-being was most affected by higher levels of competition. The harvest-oriented group placed a higher degree of importance on harvesting more than three birds and felt their well-being was most negatively affected if they only expected to harvest a single bird. These groups existed uniformly between the Mississippi and Atlantic subflyways, had a slightly higher membership of each group in rural areas, and an overall higher membership in the seclusionist group. Subsetting national survey data to profile regional differences provides key information to waterfowl managers seeking to make tailored decisions in their region or flyway. This investigation provides an important resource for informed management decisions in the Southeast region and will assist waterfowl managers by supporting engagement and communication with respondents in the Southeastern United States.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2013

The use of process models to inform and improve statistical models of nitrate occurrence, Great Miami River Basin, southwestern Ohio

Statistical models of nitrate occurrence in the glacial aquifer system of the northern United States, developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, use observed relations between nitrate concentrations and sets of explanatory variables—representing well-construction, environmental, and source characteristics— to predict the probability that nitrate, as nitrogen, will exceed a threshold concentration. However, the models do not explicitly account for the processes that control the transport of nitrogen from surface sources to a pumped well and use area-weighted mean spatial variables computed from within a circular buffer around the well as a simplified source-area conceptualization. The use of models that explicitly represent physical-transport processes can inform and, potentially, improve these statistical models. Specifically, groundwater-flow models simulate advective transport—predominant in many surficial aquifers— and can contribute to the refinement of the statistical models by (1) providing for improved, physically based representations of a source area to a well, and (2) allowing for more detailed estimates of environmental variables. A source area to a well, known as a contributing recharge area, represents the area at the water table that contributes recharge to a pumped well; a well pumped at a volumetric rate equal to the amount of recharge through a circular buffer will result in a contributing recharge area that is the same size as the buffer but has a shape that is a function of the hydrologic setting. These volume-equivalent contributing recharge areas will approximate circular buffers in areas of relatively flat hydraulic gradients, such as near groundwater divides, but in areas with steep hydraulic gradients will be elongated in the upgradient direction and agree less with the corresponding circular buffers. The degree to which process-model-estimated contributing recharge areas, which simulate advective transport and therefore account for local hydrologic settings, would inform and improve the development of statistical models can be implicitly estimated by evaluating the differences between explanatory variables estimated from the contributing recharge areas and the circular buffers used to develop existing statistical models. The larger the difference in estimated variables, the more likely that statistical models would be changed, and presumably improved, if explanatory variables estimated from contributing recharge areas were used in model development. Comparing model predictions from the two sets of estimated variables would further quantify—albeit implicitly—how an improved, physically based estimate of explanatory variables would be reflected in model predictions. Differences between the two sets of estimated explanatory variables and resultant model predictions vary spatially; greater differences are associated with areas of steep hydraulic gradients. A direct comparison, however, would require the development of a separate set of statistical models using explanatory variables from contributing recharge areas. Area-weighted means of three environmental variables—silt content, alfisol content, and depth to water from the U.S. Department of Agriculture State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data—and one nitrogen-source variable (fertilizer-application rate from county data mapped to Enhanced National Land Cover Data 1992 (NLCDe 92) agricultural land use) can vary substantially between circular buffers and volume-equivalent contributing recharge areas and among contributing recharge areas for different sets of well variables. The differences in estimated explanatory variables are a function of the same factors affecting the contributing recharge areas as well as the spatial resolution and local distribution of the underlying spatial data. As a result, differences in estimated variables between circular buffers and contributing recharge areas are complex and site specific as evidenced by differences in estimated variables for circular buffers and contributing recharge areas of existing public-supply and network wells in the Great Miami River Basin. Large differences in areaweighted mean environmental variables are observed at the basin scale, determined by using the network of uniformly spaced hypothetical wells; the differences have a spatial pattern that generally is similar to spatial patterns in the underlying STATSGO data. Generally, the largest differences were observed for area-weighted nitrogen-application rate from county and national land-use data; the basin-scale differences ranged from -1,600 (indicating a larger value from within the volume-equivalent contributing recharge area) to 1,900 kilograms per year (kg/yr); the range in the underlying spatial data was from 0 to 2,200 kg/yr. Silt content, alfisol content, and nitrogen-application rate are defined by the underlying spatial data and are external to the groundwater system; however, depth to water is an environmental variable that can be estimated in more detail and, presumably, in a more physically based manner using a groundwater-flow model than using the spatial data. Model-calculated depths to water within circular buffers in the Great Miami River Basin differed substantially from values derived from the spatial data and had a much larger range. Differences in estimates of area-weighted spatial variables result in corresponding differences in predictions of nitrate occurrence in the aquifer. In addition to the factors affecting contributing recharge areas and estimated explanatory variables, differences in predictions also are a function of the specific set of explanatory variables used and the fitted slope coefficients in a given model. For models that predicted the probability of exceeding 1 and 4 milligrams per liter as nitrogen (mg/L as N), predicted probabilities using variables estimated from circular buffers and contributing recharge areas generally were correlated but differed significantly at the local and basin scale. The scale and distribution of prediction differences can be explained by the underlying differences in the estimated variables and the relative weight of the variables in the statistical models. Differences in predictions of exceeding 1 mg/L as N, which only includes environmental variables, generally correlated with the underlying differences in STATSGO data, whereas differences in exceeding 4 mg/L as N were more spatially extensive because that model included environmental and nitrogen-source variables. Using depths to water from within circular buffers derived from the spatial data and depths to water within the circular buffers calculated from the groundwater-flow model, restricted to the same range, resulted in large differences in predicted probabilities. The differences in estimated explanatory variables between contributing recharge areas and circular buffers indicate incorporation of physically based contributing recharge area likely would result in a different set of explanatory variables and an improved set of statistical models. The use of a groundwater-flow model to improve representations of source areas or to provide more-detailed estimates of specific explanatory variables includes a number of limitations and technical considerations. An assumption in these analyses is that (1) there is a state of mass balance between recharge and pumping, and (2) transport to a pumped well is under a steady state flow field. Comparison of volumeequivalent contributing recharge areas under steady-state and transient transport conditions at a location in the southeastern part of the basin shows the steady-state contributing recharge area is a reasonable approximation of the transient contributing recharge area after between 10 and 20 years of pumping. The first assumption is a more important consideration for this analysis. A gradient effect refers to a condition where simulated pumping from a well is less than recharge through the corresponding contributing recharge area. This generally takes place in areas with steep hydraulic gradients, such as near discharge locations, and can be mitigated using a finer model discretization. A boundary effect refers to a condition where recharge through the contributing recharge area is less than pumping. This indicates other sources of water to the simulated well and could reflect a real hydrologic process. In the Great Miami River Basin, large gradient and boundary effects—defined as the balance between pumping and recharge being less than half—occurred in 5 and 14 percent of the basin, respectively. The agreement between circular buffers and volume-equivalent contributing recharge areas, differences in estimated variables, and the effect on statisticalmodel predictions between the population of wells with a balance between pumping and recharge within 10 percent and the population of all wells were similar. This indicated process-model limitations did not affect the overall findings in the Great Miami River Basin; however, this would be model specific, and prudent use of a process model needs to entail a limitations analysis and, if necessary, alterations to the model.

Ohio↗

USGS1985

Effects of flood control alternatives on fish and wildlife resources of the Malheur-Harney lakes basin

Malheur Lake is the largest freshwater marsh in the western contiguous United States and is one of the main management units of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. The marsh provides excellent waterfowl production habitat as well as vital migration habitats for birds in the Pacific flyway. Water shortages have typically been a problem in this semiarid area; however, record snowfalls and cool summers have recently caused Malheur Lake to rise to its highest level in recorded history. This has resulted in the loss of approximately 57,000 acres of important wildlife habitat as well as extensive flooding of local ranches, roads, and railroad lines. Because of the importance of the Refuge, any water management plan for the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin needs to consider the impact of management alternatives on the hydrology of Malheur Lake. The facilitated modeling workshop described in this report was conducted January 14-18, 1985, under the joint sponsorship of the Portland Ecological Services Field Office and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Portland Field Office is responsible for FWS reporting requirements on Federal water resource projects while the Refuge staff has management responsibility for much of the land affected by high water levels in the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin. The primary objective of the workshop was to begin gathering and analyzing information concerning potential fish and wildlife impacts, needs, and opportunities associated with proposed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) flood control alternatives for Malheur Lake. The workshop was structured around the formulation of a computer model that would simulate the hydrologic effects of the various alternatives and any concommitant changes in vegetation communities and wildlife use patterns. The simulation model is composed of three connected submodels. The Hydrology submodel calculates changes in lake volume, elevation, and surface area, as well as changes in water quality, that result from the proposed water management projects (upstream storage, upstream diversions, drainage canals) and the no action alternative. The Vegetation submodel determines associated changes in the areal extent of wetland and upland vegetation communities. Finally, the Wildlife submodel calculates indices of abundance or habitat suitability for colonial nesting birds (great egret, double-crested cormorant, white-faced ibis), greater sandhill crane, diving ducks, tundra swan, dabbling ducks, and Canada goose based on hydrologic and vegetation conditions. The model represents the Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin, but provides water quantity and quality indicators associated with additional flows that might occur in the Malheur River Basin. Several management scenarios, representing various flood control alternatives and assumptions concerning future runoff, were run to analyze model behavior. Scenario results are not intended as an analysis of all potential management actions or assumptions concerning future runoff. Rather, they demonstrate the type of analysis that could be conducted if the model was sufficiently refined and tested. Early in a model development project, the process of building the model is usually of greater benefit than the model itself. The model building process stimulates interaction among agencies, assists in integrating existing information, and helps identify research needs. These benefits usually accrue even in the absence of real predictive power in the resulting model. This workshop initiated interaction among the primary State and Federal resource and development agencies in a nonadversarial forum. The exchange of information and expertise among agencies provided the FWS with the best information currently available for use in the Planning Aid Letter it will develop at the Reconnaissance state of the COE study. If the COE subsequently initiates a Feasability Study, this information will be refined further and will aid the FWS in preparing its Coordination Act Report on any flood control alternative proposed by the COE. The model building and testing process also helped identify model limitations and more general information needs that should be evaluated for further study prior to preparation of an FWS Coordination Act Report. Major needs associated with the Hydrology submodel include a more detailed representation of hydrologic units (separately consider Harney Lake, Mud Lake, and Malheur Lake or the three hydrological units within Malheur Lake, rather than a combined lake system) and explicitly representation of groundwater storage and discharge in water budget calculations. A better representation of the hydrological units will require more detailed topographic data for the basin, capacity-elevation and elevation-surface area curves for each unit, and better water flow data between the units. Additional water quality parameters and constraints on proposed canal operation due to conditions in the Malheur River might also be added. Key Vegetation submodel needs include fine-tuning existing vegetation relationships in the model and adding relationships to address the influence of historical conditions on vegetation development, effects of very rapid changes in lake level, effects of wildlife populations (e.g., carp, muskrat), responses of vegetation to habitat management actions (e.g, haying, grazing, burning), and better representation of sago pondweed dynamics. A complementary geographic information system might also be developed for spatial analyses. Major needs that should be evaluated for the Wildlife submodel include addition of other wildlife species that have important effects on habitat on the Refuge (e.g., carp, muskrat) and consideration of additional life-cycle requisites and controlling variable for species presently in the model. Some of these limitations could perhaps be overcome if historical data on habitat conditions were developed to use with historical data on wildlife populations.

Oregon↗