Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Cooperative Investigations 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 613 records · Page 34Linked to original sources

Geologic map of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park region, Tennessee and North Carolina

The geology of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park (GSMNP) region of Tennessee and North Carolina was studied from 1993 to 2003 as part of a cooperative investigation with the National Park Service (NPS). This work has been compiled as a 1:100,000-scale map derived from mapping done at 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 scale. The geologic data are intended to support cooperative investigations with NPS, the development of a new soil map by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory ( http://www.discoverlifeinamerica.org/ ). At the request of NPS, we mapped areas previously not visited, revised the geology where stratigraphic and structural problems existed, and developed a map database for use in interdisciplinary research, land management, and interpretive programs for park visitors.

North Carolina, Tennessee↗

Activities in Idaho; status of projects, fiscal year 1981

Twenty-three projects were conducted by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in Idaho during fiscal year 1981. These projects were made in cooperation with 6 State and local and 11 Federal agencies. State and local cooperative funding amounted to $720,670; Federal funding amounted to $2,437,628. Eighty-three persons were employed--40 full time and 43 other than full time. In addition, the Water Resources Division maintains a project office at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Work there is done in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, the sole funding source. Projects other than continuing programs for collection of hydrologic data included flood-characteristics and flood-mapping studies, geothermal-resource investigations, ground-water quality assessments, basin- and region-wide water-resource investigations, river quality-of-water monitoring studies, volcanic-ash related studies, and ground-water-trends and stream-gaging program evaluations.

Idaho↗

U.S. Geological Survey geohydrologic studies and monitoring at the Idaho National Laboratory, southeastern Idaho

Background The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geohydrologic studies and monitoring at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is an ongoing, long-term program. This program, which began in 1949, includes hydrologic monitoring networks and investigative studies that describe the effects of waste disposal on water contained in the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP) aquifer and the availability of water for long-term consumptive and industrial use. Interpretive reports documenting study findings are available to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors; other Federal, State, and local agencies; private firms; and the public at https://id.water.usgs.gov/INL/Pubs/index.html . Information contained within these reports is crucial to the management and use of the aquifer by the INL and the State of Idaho. USGS geohydrologic studies and monitoring are done in cooperation with the DOE Idaho Operations Office.

Idaho↗

Erosion monitoring along the Coosa River below Logan Martin Dam near Vincent, Alabama, using terrestrial light detection and ranging (T-LiDAR) technology

Alabama Power operates a series of dams on the Coosa River in east central Alabama. These dams form six reservoirs that provide power generation, flood control, recreation, economic opportunity, and fish and wildlife habitats to the region. The Logan Martin Reservoir is located approximately 45 kilometers east of Birmingham and borders Saint Clair and Talladega Counties. Discharges below the reservoir are controlled by power generation at Logan Martin Dam, and there has been an ongoing concern about the stability of the streambanks downstream of the dam. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Alabama Power conducted a scientific investigation of the geomorphic conditions of a 115-meter length of streambank along the Coosa River by using tripod-mounted terrestrial light detection and ranging technology. Two surveys were conducted before and after the winter flood season of 2010 to determine the extent and magnitude of geomorphic change. A comparison of the terrestrial light detection and ranging datasets indicated that approximately 40 cubic meters of material had been eroded from the upstream section of the study area. The terrestrial light detection and ranging data included in this report consist of electronic point cloud files containing several million georeferenced data points, as well as a surface model measuring changes between scans.

Alabama↗

Susceptibility of ground water to surface and shallow sources of contamination in Mississippi

Ground water, because of its extensive use in agriculture, industry, and public-water supply, is one of Mississippi's most important natural resources. Ground water is the source for about 80 percent of the total freshwater used by the State's population (Solley and others, 1993). About 2,600 Mgal/d of freshwater is withdrawn from aquifers in Mississippi (D.E. Burt, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 1995). Wells capable of yielding 200 gal/min of water with quality suitable for most uses can be developed nearly anywhere in the State (Bednar, 1988). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, and the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Bureau of Plant Industry, conducted an investigation to evaluate the susceptibility of ground water to contamination from surgace and shallow sources in Mississippi. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to develop and analyze statewide spatial data layers that contain geologic, hydrologic, physiographic, and cultural information.

Mississippi↗

Estimated probabilities and volumes of postwildfire debris flows—A prewildfire evaluation for the Pikes Peak area, El Paso and Teller Counties, Colorado

Debris flows are fast-moving, high-density slurries of water, sediment, and debris that can have enormous destructive power. Although debris flows, triggered by intense rainfall or rapid snowmelt on steep hillsides covered with erodible material, are a common geomorphic process in some unburned areas, a wildfire can transform conditions in a watershed with no recent history of debris flows into conditions that pose a substantial hazard to residents, communities, infrastructure, aquatic habitats, and water supply. The location, extent, and severity of wildfire and the subsequent rainfall intensity and duration cannot be known in advance; however, hypothetical scenarios based on empirical debris-flow models are useful planning tools for conceptualizing potential postwildfire debris flows. A prewildfire study to determine the potential for postwildfire debris flows in the Pikes Peak area in El Paso and Teller Counties, Colorado, was initiated in 2010 by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs Utilities. The study was conducted to provide a relative measure of which subwatersheds might constitute the most serious potential debris-flow hazards in the event of a large-scale wildfire and subsequent rainfall.

Colorado↗

Vulnerable transportation and utility assets near actively migrating streams in Indiana

An investigation was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs that found 1,132 transportation and utility assets in Indiana are vulnerable to fluvial erosion hazards due to close proximity to actively migrating streams. Locations of transportation assets (bridges, roadways, and railroad lines) and selected utility assets (high-capacity overhead power-transmission lines, underground pipelines, water treatment facilities, and in-channel dams) were determined using aerial imagery hosted by the Google Earth platform. Identified assets were aggregated by stream reach, county, and class. Accompanying the report is a polyline shapefile of the stream reaches documented by Robinson. The shapefile, derived from line work in the National Hydrography Dataset and attributed with channel migration rates, is released with complete Federal Geographic Data Committee metadata. The data presented in this report are intended to help stakeholders and others identify high-risk areas where transportation and utility assets may be threatened by fluvial erosion hazards thus warranting consideration for mitigation strategies.

Indiana↗

Groundwater contaminant science activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in New England

Aquifers in New England provide water for human needs and natural ecosystems. In some areas, however, aquifers have been degraded by contaminants from geologic and human sources. In recent decades, the U.S. Geological Survey has been a leader in describing contaminant occurrence in the bedrock and surficial aquifers of New England. In cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey has also studied the vulnerability of groundwater to contaminants, the factors affecting the geographic distribution of contaminants, and the geochemical processes controlling contaminant transport and fate. This fact sheet describes some of the major science needs in the region related to groundwater contaminants and highlights recent U.S. Geological Survey studies that provide a foundation for future investigations.

New England↗

Geological Survey Research 1966, Chapter A

'Geological Survey Research 1966' is the seventh annual review of the econamic and scientific work of the U.S. Geological Survey. As in previous years the purpose of the volume is to make available promptly to the public the highlights of Survey investigations. This year the volume consists of 4 chapters (A through D) of Professional Paper 550. Chapter A contains a summary of significant results, and the remaining chapters are made up of collections of short technical papers. Many of the results summarized in chapter A are discussed in greater detail in the short papers or in reports listed in 'Publications in Fiscal Year 1966,' beginning on page A265. The tables of contents for chapters B through D are listed on pages A259-A264. Numerous Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies listed on pages A211-A215 cooperated financially with the Geological Survey during fiscal 1966 and have contributed significantly to the results reported here. They are identified where appropriate in the short technical papers that have appeared in Geological Survey Research and in papers published cooperatively, but generally are not identified in the brief statements in chapter A. Many individuals on the staff of the Geological Survey have contributed to 'Geological Survey Research 1966.' Reference is made to only a few. Frank W. Trainer, Water Resources Division, was responsible for organizing and assembling chapter A and for critical review of papers in chapters B-D, assisted by Louis Pavlides, Geologic Division. Marston S. Chase, Publications Division, was in charge of production aspects of the series, assisted by Jesse R. Upperco in technical editing, and William H. Elliott and James R. Hamilton in planning and preparing illustrations. The volume for next year, 'Geological Survey Research 1967,' will be published as chapters af Professional Paper 5715. Previous volumes are listed below, with their series designations. Gealagical Survey Research 1960-Prof. Paper 400 Gealagical Survey Research 1961-Prof. Paper 424 Gealagical Survey Research 1962-Prof. Paper 450 Gealagical Survey Research 1963-Prof. Paper 475 Gealagical Survey Research 1964-Prof. Paper 501 Gealagical Survey Research 1965-Prof. Paper 525

Professional Paper↗

Pesticides in ground water in selected agricultural land-use areas and hydrogeologic settings in Pennsylvania, 2003-07

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) as part of the Pennsylvania Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy (PPGWS). Monitoring data and extensive quality-assurance data on the occurrence of pesticides in ground water during 2003–07 are presented and evaluated; decreases in the land area used for agriculture and corresponding changes in the use of pesticides also are documented. In the Pennsylvania ground waters assessed since 2003, concentrations of pesticides did not exceed any maximum contaminant or health advisory levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; PPGWS actions are invoked by the PDA at fractions of these levels and were needed only in areas designated by the PDA for special ground-water protection. Previous investigations through 1998 of pesticides in Pennsylvania ground water identified land use, as a surrogate for pesticide use, and rock type of the aquifer combined with physiography as key hydrogeologic setting variables for understanding aquifer vulnerability to contamination and the common occurrence of atrazine and metolachlor in ground water. Of 20 major hydrogeologic settings in a framework established in 1999 for pesticide monitoring in Pennsylvania, 9 were identified as priorities for data collection in order to change the monitoring status from "inadequate" to "adequate" for the PPGWS. Agricultural and forested land-use areas are decreasing because of urban and suburban growth. In the nine hydrogeologic settings evaluated using 1992 and 2001 data, decreases of up to 12 percent for agricultural land and 10 percent for forested land corresponded to increases of up to 11 percent for urban land. Changes in agricultural pesticide use were computed from crop data. For example, from 1996 to 2004–05, atrazine use declined by about 15 percent to 1,314,000 lb/yr (pounds per year) and metolachlor use increased by about 20 percent to 895,000 lb/yr; these compounds are the two most-used agricultural pesticides statewide. In 2003–07, a baseline assessment of pesticides was conducted in five of nine hydrogeologic settings with inadequate monitoring data—the Blue Ridge crystalline and Triassic Lowland siliciclastic, Eastern Lake surficial, Devonian-Silurian carbonate, Great Valley siliciclastic, and Northeastern Glaciated surficial settings. Between 20 and 30 wells in each setting were monitored. Of the 126 wells sampled, 96 well-water samples were analyzed for at least 52 pesticide compounds at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) using a method with a minimum reporting level (MRL) at or above 0.002 µg/L (micrograms per liter). Of the 96 well waters analyzed by NWQL, 43 had measureable concentrations of one or more pesticides. Atrazine and (or) deethylatrazine (CIAT), a degradation product of atrazine, were reported at or above the MRL in 39 of the 43 well waters. Neither atrazine nor CIAT were reported at concentrations exceeding 0.10 µg/L; all measured concentrations in these five settings were below PPGWS action levels. Metolachlor was present in 7 of the 43 well waters with measureable concentrations of 1 or more pesticides; however, concentrations were below the MRL. The other 30 samples (10 of 20 wells in the Blue Ridge crystalline and Triassic Lowland siliciclastic setting and all 20 wells in the Eastern Lake surficial setting) were analyzed for at least 19 pesticide compounds at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Laboratory (PADEPL); the PADEPL reported no concentrations of pesticides at or above an MRL of 0.10 µg/L. Statistical tests using the NWQL analytical results showed correlations between pesticide occurrence and two indicators of water-quality degradation—the occurrence of total coliform bacteria and nitrate concentration. A 2 × 2 contingency-table test indicated a relation between presence or absence of atrazine or metolachlor and presence or absence of bacteria only for the 10 wells representing the Blue Ridge crystalline and Triassic Lowland siliciclastic setting. Results of Spearman’s rank test showed strong positive correlations in the Devonian-Silurian carbonate setting between 1) the number of pesticides above the MRLs and nitrate concentration, and 2) concentrations of atrazine and nitrate. Atrazine concentration and nitrate concentration also showed a statistically significant positive correlation in the Great Valley siliciclastic setting. An additional component of baseline monitoring was to evaluate changes in pesticide concentration in water from wells representing hydrogeologic settings most vulnerable to contamination from pesticides. In 2003, 16 wells originally sampled in the 1990s were resampled—4 each in the Appalachian Mountain carbonate, Triassic Lowland siliciclastic, Great Valley carbonate, and Piedmont carbonate settings. Nine of these wells, where pesticide concentrations from 1993 and 2003 were analyzed at the NWQL, were chosen for a paired-sample analysis using concentrations of atrazine and metolachlor. A statistically significant decrease in atrazine concentration was identified using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p = 0.004); significant temporal changes in metolachlor concentrations were not observed (p = 0.625). Monitoring in three areas of special ground-water protection, where selected pesticide concentrations in well water were at or above the PPGWS action levels, was done at wells BE 1370 (Berks County, Oley Township), BA 437 (Blair County, North Woodbury Township), and LN 1842 (Lancaster County, Earl Township). Co-occurrence of pesticide-degradation products with parent compounds was documented for the first time in ground-water samples collected from these three wells. Degradation products of atrazine, cyanazine, acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor were commonly at larger concentrations than the parent compound in the same water sample. Pesticide occurrence in water from wells neighboring the hot-spot wells was highly variable; however, the same sets of pesticide compounds that were present in wells BA 437, BE 1370, and LN 1842 were present to some degree in water from neighboring wells. To evaluate temporal changes in concentration, nonparametric statistical tests were used to determine overall and seasonal monotonic trends. Concentrations of alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor, and nitrate were examined using the 5-year (2003–07) and the long-term data from wells BA 437 and LN 1842 (1996–2007 and 1995–2007, respectively), and the long-term data for well BE 1370 (1998–2007); results showed either downward trends or no trends. Trends in acetochlor concentrations were tested only at well LN 1842 using the 5-year data; no trends were observed. Homogeneity of trend tests indicated statistically significant downward concentration trends in the long-term data were due to seasonal trends as follows: BA 437—alachlor and atrazine (summer); BE 1370—atrazine and metolachlor (winter) and alachlor (winter and spring); LN 1842—alachlor (summer and fall) and atrazine (spring and fall).

Pennsylvania↗

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 26-29, 2011

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories and are developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span the entire geologic time frame. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, and post-depositional tectonic events that form carbonate rock aquifers are varied and complex, involving both biological and physical processes that can influence the development of permeability. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place result in the unique dual or triple porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrologic systems often present challenges to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport. The concept for developing a Karst Interest Group evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division. As a result, the Karst Interest Group was formed in 2000. The Karst Interest Group is a loose-knit grass-roots organization of USGS employees devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst hydrology studies. The mission of the Karst Interest Group is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among USGS scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the Karst Interest Group encourages cooperative studies between the different disciplines of the USGS and other Federal agencies, and university researchers or research institutes. This fifth workshop is a joint workshop of the USGS Karst Interest Group and University of Arkansas HydroDays workshop, sponsored by the USGS, the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Additional sponsors are: the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and Beaver Water District, northwest Arkansas. The majority of funding for the proceedings preparation and workshop was provided by the USGS Groundwater Resources Program, National Cooperative Mapping Program, and the Regional Executives of the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, South Central and Rocky Mountain Areas. The University of Arkansas provided the rooms and facilities for the technical and poster presentations of the workshop, vans for the field trips, and sponsored the HydroDays banquet at the Savoy Experimental Watershed on Wednesday after the technical sessions.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

Acoustic-reflection profiles, eastern Greater Antilles: Leg 3, 1971 cruise, UNITEDGEO I

Introduction As part of a cooperative marine research program designated the Internataional Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE), the United states Geological Survey is participating in an investigation of the geologic framework and resource potential of continental margins and small ocean basins in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and west African continental shelf areas. These studies are funded through the National Science Foundation. Legs 1 and 2, completed June 22 and July 8, respectively, were concerned with subbottom features of the Bay of Campeche and with the tectonic framework of the continental margin east of the Yucatan Peninsula. Leg 3, described in this report was conducted in the Antilles region of the northeastern Caribbean between July 17 and August 4, 1971. This report presents the unedited records of the approximately 5840 km of acoustic reflection profiling made during Leg 3. Magnetic and gravity data were collected also but are being reported elsewhere in conjunction with the results of the study.

Report↗

Archive of Digital Chirp Subbottom Profile Data Collected During USGS Cruise 14BIM05 Offshore of Breton Island, Louisiana, August 2014

From August 11 to 31, 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ), conducted a geophysical survey to investigate the geologic controls on barrier island framework and long-term sediment transport offshore of Breton Island, Louisiana as part of a broader USGS study on Barrier Island Mapping ( BIM ). Additional details related to this activity can be found by searching the USGS's Coastal and Marine Geoscience Data System (CMGDS), for field activity 2014-317-FA (also known as 14BIM05). These surveys were funded through the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program ( CMGP ) and the Louisiana Outer Coast Early Restoration Project. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital chirp subbottom data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System ( GIS ) files, Field Activity Collection System ( FACS ) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee ( FGDC ) metadata. Gained digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Abbreviations page for explanations of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. All chirp systems use an acoustic signal of continuously varying frequency; the EdgeTech 512i system used during this survey produced high-resolution, shallow-penetration (typically less than 50 milliseconds [ ms] ) profile images of sub-seafloor stratigraphy. The towfish contains a transducer that transmits and receives acoustic energy and typically is towed 1–2 meters ( m ) below the sea surface. As transmitted acoustic energy intersects density boundaries, such as the seafloor or sub-surface sediment layers, some energy is reflected back toward the transducer, received, and recorded by a Personal Computer ( PC) -based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at regular intervals (for example, 0.125 seconds ( s) ) and returned energy is recorded for a specific duration (for example, 50 ms ). In this way, a two-dimensional ( 2-D ) vertical image of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship's track is produced. Figure 2 displays the acquisition geometry. Refer to table 1 for a summary of acquisition parameters and table 2 for trackline statistics. The archived trace data are in standard SEG Y rev. 0 format (Barry and others, 1975); the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header are in American Standard Code for Information Interchange ( ASCII ) format instead of Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code ( EBCDIC ) format. The SEG Y files are available on the DVD version of this report or online, downloadable via the USGS Coastal and Marine Geoscience Data System ( http://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov ). The data are also available for viewing using GeoMapApp ( http://www.geomapapp.org ) and Virtual Ocean ( http://www.virtualocean.org ) multi-platform open source software. The Web version of this archive does not contain the SEG Y trace files. To obtain the complete DVD archive, contact USGS Information Services at 1-888-ASK-USGS or infoservices@usgs.gov. The SEG Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix ( SU ) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2010). See the How To Download SEG Y Data page for download instructions. The printable profiles are provided as Graphics Interchange Format ( GIF ) images processed and gained using SU software and can be viewed from the Profiles page or by using the links located on the trackline maps; refer to the Software page for links to example SU processing scripts.

Louisana↗

Summary of hydrologic data for the San Gabriel River basin and Edwards Aquifer, Georgetown area, Texas, water year 1988

The Edwards aquifer is the principle source of freshwater for municipal, domestic, and industrial users in the Georgetown area. Other sources of freshwater are the streams draining the San Gabriel River basin and Lake Georgetown. Lake Georgetown, located on the North Fork San Gabriel River west of Georgetown, is a freshwater supply for some municipalities in the area, water in the San Gabriel River basin also supplies a variety of needs east of Georgetown. Because of the importance of the Edwards aquifer and the surface waters in the area, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the city of Georgetown, conducted a monitoring program of the Edwards Aquifer and principal streams during water year 1988. The study area centered on Georgetown and encompassed an area of about 150 square miles (fig. 1). The freshwater resources in the Georgetown area have been the subject of three recent reports. Baker and others (1986) described the Edwards aquifer and the relation between recharge and discharge. Krietier and others (1987) provided fracture analysis, geologic mapping, ground-water chemistry, and the relation between rainfall and recharge in the study area. Land and Dorsey (1988) conducted an investigation to reassess the inclusion of the Georgetown Limestone as one of the geologic units comprising the Edwards aquifer. In addition, the Geological Survey publishes streamflow and water-quality data in the Water Resources Data for Texas report on an annual basis. The primary purpose of this report is to present a summary of the hydrologic data collected from the streams draining the San Gabriel River basin and from the Edwards aquifer during the 1988 water year (October 1987–September 1988). A secondary purpose is to add perspective to the 1988 data by including data from the previous 2 years (1986 and 1987) when available. The scope of the report is limited to the Georgetown area (fig. 1) and to data collected by the Geological Survey.

Texas↗

An initial-abstraction, constant-loss model for unit hydrograph modeling for applicable watersheds in Texas

Estimation of representative hydrographs from design storms, which are known as design hydrographs, provides for cost-effective, riskmitigated design of drainage structures such as bridges, culverts, roadways, and other infrastructure. During 2001?07, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation, investigated runoff hydrographs, design storms, unit hydrographs,and watershed-loss models to enhance design hydrograph estimation in Texas. Design hydrographs ideally should mimic the general volume, peak, and shape of observed runoff hydrographs. Design hydrographs commonly are estimated in part by unit hydrographs. A unit hydrograph is defined as the runoff hydrograph that results from a unit pulse of excess rainfall uniformly distributed over the watershed at a constant rate for a specific duration. A time-distributed, watershed-loss model is required for modeling by unit hydrographs. This report develops a specific time-distributed, watershed-loss model known as an initial-abstraction, constant-loss model. For this watershed-loss model, a watershed is conceptualized to have the capacity to store or abstract an absolute depth of rainfall at and near the beginning of a storm. Depths of total rainfall less than this initial abstraction do not produce runoff. The watershed also is conceptualized to have the capacity to remove rainfall at a constant rate (loss) after the initial abstraction is satisfied. Additional rainfall inputs after the initial abstraction is satisfied contribute to runoff if the rainfall rate (intensity) is larger than the constant loss. The initial abstraction, constant-loss model thus is a two-parameter model. The initial-abstraction, constant-loss model is investigated through detailed computational and statistical analysis of observed rainfall and runoff data for 92 USGS streamflow-gaging stations (watersheds) in Texas with contributing drainage areas from 0.26 to 166 square miles. The analysis is limited to a previously described, watershed-specific, gamma distribution model of the unit hydrograph. In particular, the initial-abstraction, constant-loss model is tuned to the gamma distribution model of the unit hydrograph. A complex computational analysis of observed rainfall and runoff for the 92 watersheds was done to determine, by storm, optimal values of initial abstraction and constant loss. Optimal parameter values for a given storm were defined as those values that produced a modeled runoff hydrograph with volume equal to the observed runoff hydrograph and also minimized the residual sum of squares of the two hydrographs. Subsequently, the means of the optimal parameters were computed on a watershed-specific basis. These means for each watershed are considered the most representative, are tabulated, and are used in further statistical analyses. Statistical analyses of watershed-specific, initial abstraction and constant loss include documentation of the distribution of each parameter using the generalized lambda distribution. The analyses show that watershed development has substantial influence on initial abstraction and limited influence on constant loss. The means and medians of the 92 watershed-specific parameters are tabulated with respect to watershed development; although they have considerable uncertainty, these parameters can be used for parameter prediction for ungaged watersheds. The statistical analyses of watershed-specific, initial abstraction and constant loss also include development of predictive procedures for estimation of each parameter for ungaged watersheds. Both regression equations and regression trees for estimation of initial abstraction and constant loss are provided. The watershed characteristics included in the regression analyses are (1) main-channel length, (2) a binary factor representing watershed development, (3) a binary factor representing watersheds with an abundance of rocky and thin-soiled terrain, and (4) curve numb

Scientific Investigations Report↗

Investigation of the hydrologic monitoring network of the Willcox and Douglas Basins of southeastern Arizona: A project of the Rural Watershed Initiative

In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), began an investigation of the geology and hydrology of the Willcox and Douglas Basins (primarily focusing on the hydrologic monitoring network) as part of the Rural Watershed Initiative (RWI). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the data-collection network that is used to monitor hydrologic conditions and ground-water storage changes in the Willcox and Douglas Basins.

Arizona↗

Characterization of subsurface geologic structure for potential water resources near the Villages of Moenkopi, Arizona, 2009--2010

The Hopi Tribe depends on groundwater as their primary drinking-water source in the area of the Villages of Moenkopi, in northeastern Arizona. Growing concerns of the potential for uranium contamination at the Moenkopi water supply wells from the Tuba City Landfill prompted the need for an improved understanding of subsurface geology and groundwater near Moenkopi. Information in this report provides the Hopi Tribe with new hydrogeologic information that provides a better understanding of groundwater resources near the Villages of Moenkopi. The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Hopi Tribe used the controlled source audio-frequency magnetotelluric (CSAMT) geophysical technique to characterize the subsurface near Moenkopi from December 2009 to September 2010. A total of six CSAMT profiles were surveyed to identify possible fracturing and faulting in the subsurface that provides information about the occurrence and movement of groundwater. Inversion results from the six CSAMT lines indicated that north to south trending fractures are more prevalent than east to west. CSAMT Lines A and C showed multiple areas in the Navajo Sandstone where fractures are present. Lines B, D, E, and F did not show the same fracturing as Lines A and C.

Arizona↗

Reevaluation of the ground-water resources of Tooele Valley, Utah

This study of the geohydrology of Tooele Valley, Utah, was made by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah State Engineer during the period 1958-63. The purpose of the study was to update an earlier investigation of ground water in Tooele Valley made by the Geological Survey during 1940-42 (Thomas, 1946). The construction of approximately 256 wells in the valley since 1940, many of which are large-diameter pumped wells drilled since 1950, made available new data on water levels, well discharge, and chemical quality for interpretation of ground-water conditions. New data also were available on spring discharge, streamflow, aquifer characteristics, and geologic, geophysical, and climatic conditions. The earlier report by Thomas (1946) was freely used during the preparation of this report.

Utah↗