Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental Geology”

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 847 records · Page 47Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Imperviousness

This data set represents the mean percent impervious surface from the Imperviousness Layer of the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 (LaMotte and Wieczorek, 2010), compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set represents imperviousness for the conterminous United States for 2001. The Imperviousness Layer of the National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: NLCD 2001 Land Use and Land Cover

This data set represents the estimated area of land use and land cover from the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 (LaMotte, 2008), compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set represents land use and land cover for the conterminous United States for 2001. The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2006

Ground-water-quality data in Pennsylvania: A compilation of computerized [electronic] databases, 1979-2004

This study, by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), provides a compilation of ground-water-quality data for a 25-year period (January 1, 1979, through August 11, 2004) based on water samples from wells. The data are from eight source agencies唯orough of Carroll Valley, Chester County Health Department, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection-Ambient and Fixed Station Network, Montgomery County Health Department, Pennsylvania Drinking Water Information System, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The ground-water-quality data from the different source agencies varied in type and number of analyses; however, the analyses are represented by 12 major analyte groups:biological (bacteria and viruses), fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, major ions, minor ions (including trace elements), nutrients (dominantly nitrate and nitrite as nitrogen), pesticides, radiochemicals (dominantly radon or radium), volatile organic compounds, wastewater compounds, and water characteristics (dominantly field pH, field specific conductance, and hardness). A summary map shows the areal distribution of wells with ground-water-quality data statewide and by major watersheds and source agency. Maps of 35 watersheds within Pennsylvania are used to display the areal distribution of water-quality information. Additional maps emphasize the areal distribution with respect to 13 major geolithologic units in Pennsylvania and concentration ranges of nitrate (as nitrogen). Summary data tables by source agency provide information on the number of wells and samples collected for each of the 35 watersheds and analyte groups. The number of wells sampled for ground-water-quality data varies considerably across Pennsylvania. Of the 8,012 wells sampled, the greatest concentration of wells are in the southeast (Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties), in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, and in the northwest (Erie County). The number of wells sampled is relatively sparse in south-central (Adams, Cambria, Cumberland, and Franklin Counties), central (Centre, Indiana, and Snyder Counties), and north-central (Bradford, Potter, and Tioga Counties) Pennsylvania. Little to no data are available for approximately one-third of the state. Water characteristics and nutrients were the most frequently sampled major analyte groups; approximately 21,000 samples were collected for each group. Major and minor ions were the next most-frequently sampled major analyte groups; approximately 17,000 and 12,000 samples were collected, respectively. For the remaining eight major analyte groups, the number of samples collected ranged from a low of 307 samples (wastewater compounds) to a high of approximately 3,000 samples (biological). The number of samples that exceeded a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) by major analyte group also varied. Of the 2,988 samples in the biological analyte group, 53 percent had water that exceeded an MCL. Almost 2,500 samples were collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds; 14 percent exceeded an MCL. Other major analyte groups that frequently exceeded MCLs or SMCLs included major ions (17,465 samples and a 33.9 percent exceedence), minor ions (11,905 samples and a 17.1 percent exceedence), and water characteristics (21,183 samples and a 20.3 percent exceedence). Samples collected and analyzed for fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides (4,062 samples), radiochemicals (1,628 samples), wastewater compounds (307 samples), and nutrients (20,822 samples) had the lowest exceedences of 0.3, 8.4, 0.0, and 8.8 percent, respectively.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2005

Geodatabase of environmental information for Air Force Plant 4 and Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base Carswell Field, Fort Worth, Texas, 1990-2004

Air Force Plant 4 (AFP4) and adjacent Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base (NAS-JRB) at Fort Worth, Tex., constitute a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility that has been in operation since 1942. Contaminants from the facility, primarily volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals, have entered the groundwater-flow system through leakage from waste-disposal sites (landfills and pits) and from manufacturing processes (U.S. Air Force, Aeronautical Systems Center, 1995). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Aeronautical Systems Center, Environmental Management Directorate (ASC/ENVR), developed a comprehensive database (or geodatabase) of temporal and spatial environmental information associated with the geology, hydrology, and water quality at AFP4 and NAS-JRB. The database of this report provides information about the AFP4 and NAS-JRB study area including sample location names, identification numbers, locations, historical dates, and various measured hydrologic data. This database does not include every sample location at the site, but is limited to an aggregation of selected digital and hardcopy data of the USAF, USGS, and various consultants who have previously or are currently working at the site.

Texas↗
USGS2005

Chemical openness and potential for misinterpretation of the solute environment of coastal sabkhat

Sabkha deposits in the geologic record are commonly used to interpret the environmental conditions of deposition. Implicit in this use is the assumption that the solute system is chemically closed, that is, the authigenic minerals represent the composition of the fluids in their environment of origin. Thermodynamic and mass-balance calculations based on measurements of water and solute flux of contemporary Abu Dhabi coastal sabkha system, however, demonstrate that the system is open for sodium and chloride, where nearly half of the input is lost, but closed for sulfur, where nearly 100% is retained. Sulfur and chloride isotopes were consistent with this observation. If these sabkha deposits were preserved in the geologic record, they would suggest a solute environment rich in sulfate and poor in chloride; yet the reverse is true. In most coastal-sabkha environments, capillary forces bring solutes and water to the surface, where the water evaporates and halite, carnallite, sylvite, and other soluble minerals are precipitated. Retrograde minerals, such as anhydrite, calcite, dolomite, and gypsum, however, precipitate and accumulate in the capillary zone beneath the surface of the coastal sabkha. Because they possess relatively low solubility and are below the surface, these retrograde minerals are protected from dissolution and physical erosion occurring from infrequent but intense rainfall events. Thus, they are more likely to be preserved in the geological record than highly soluble minerals formed on the surface. ?? 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Chemical Geology↗
USGS2016

Sediment data collected in 2014 from Barnegat Bay, New Jersey

In response to the 2010 Governor’s Action Plan to clean up the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor (BBLEH) estuary in New Jersey, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) partnered with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in 2011 to begin a multidisciplinary research project to understand the physical controls on water quality in the bay. Between 2011 and 2013, USGS scientists mapped the geological and morphological characteristics of the seafloor of the BBLEH estuary using a suite of geophysical tools. However, this mapping effort included only surficial characterization of bay sediments; to verify the sub-surface geophysical data, sediment cores were required. This report serves as an archive of sedimentologic data from 18 vibracores collected from Barnegat Bay between May and August of 2014 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on behalf of the USGS. The vibracores were collected in conjunction with an ongoing NRCS subaqueous soil survey for the BBLEH estuary. The data presented in this report, including descriptive core logs, core photographs, processed grain-size data, and Geographic Information System (GIS) data files with accompanying formal Federal Geographic Data Committee metadata, can be viewed or downloaded from the Data Products and Downloads page.

New Jersey↗
USGS2023

Status and trends of total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations, loads, and yields in streams of Mississippi, water years 2008–18

To assess the status and trends of conditions of surface waters throughout Mississippi, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), summarized concentrations and estimated loads, yields, trends, and spatial and temporal patterns of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) at 20 stream sites in MDEQ’s ambient water-quality monitoring network and 2 stream sites in the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment Project’s monitoring network. Comparison of streamflow at the time of water-quality sample collection to flow-duration curves for each site showed that samples were relatively evenly spread over a wide range of flows, indicating that load estimations were representative of a wide range of flows. Relation of streamflow to concentrations of TN and TP varied among sites and land use. Sites with high agriculture land use in the drainage basin tended to have a positive correlation between streamflow and concentration, suggesting influence of event-driven nonpoint-source runoff. Sites near urban (developed) areas tended to have a negative correlation between streamflow and concentration, suggesting chronic point-source influences during low-flow conditions. Sites with high forest land use and lower agriculture and urban (developed) land use showed little to no association between streamflow and concentration. Seasonal distributions of concentrations of TN and TP also corresponded closely with variations in land use. Sites near urban (developed) land had the highest concentrations in late summer and fall, sites with a high percentage of agricultural land had the highest concentrations in the spring, and sites that were primarily forested or with little developed land did not exhibit substantial changes in concentration across seasons. Eight sites had statistical likelihoods for upward trends of TN loads, and seven sites had statistical likelihoods for downward trends. Trends in TN loads at six sites were considered “about as likely as not,” meaning that a site has an equal chance of having an upward or downward trend. Trend results of mean annual flow-normalized loads of TP for the period of analysis (2008–18) showed that 16 sites had upward trends, 3 sites had downward trends, and 2 sites were considered “about as likely as not.” Results from our study were compared to results from existing regional models to assess accuracy of predictions at a local scale. Comparisons of yields predicted from 2012 regional-scale SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) to results from this study showed the 2012 SPARROW-predicted estimates varied in consistency with results from this study. The 2012 SPARROW-prediction model underestimated TN yields, more often and by a slightly larger degree, more than it overestimated TN yields. The 2012 SPARROW-predicted model tended to underestimate yields at study sites with higher yields. All four sites in the predominantly agricultural area of northwest Mississippi, locally known as the Mississippi Delta, were underestimated by 2012 SPARROW. For TP, yield comparisons at sites with lower yields were consistent, yields at sites with midrange yields tended to be overestimated by SPARROW, and yields at sites with high yields tended to be underestimated by SPARROW. TP yields at four sites in the Mississippi Delta were underestimated by the 2012 SPARROW-predicted model. Results of select sites from our study were also compared to other published load estimates from an earlier time period to evaluate possible trends. Comparison of TN yields at four sites and TP yields at three sites from the study-derived estimates to estimates made from data spanning 1993–2004 showed decreasing TN yields at all four sites and decreasing TP yields at two of three sites, with increasing yields of TP at the Yazoo River lower site. Also, a third comparison of the TN and TP yields of the Yazoo River lower site of this study to estimates made from data spanning 1996–97 showed decreasing TN yields but similar TP yields. This suggests that TN yields may have decreased over the last 20–30 years, but TP yields remain constant or are increasing.

Mississippi↗
USGS2011

Geophysical logging data from the Mills Gap Road area near Asheville, North Carolina

In September 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was requested to assist the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Superfund Section in the development of a conceptual groundwater flow model in the area of the Mills Gap Road contaminant investigation near Asheville, North Carolina (Site ID A4P5) through an Interagency Grant and work authorization IAD DW number 14946085. The USGS approach included the application of established and state-of-the-science borehole geophysical tools and methods used to delineate and characterize fracture zones in the regolith-fractured bedrock groundwater system. Borehole geophysical logs were collected in eight wells in the Mills Gap Road project area from January through June 2010. These subsurface data were compared to local surface geologic mapping data collected by the North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS) from January through May 2010.

North Carolina↗
USGS1994

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1993

This collection of 19 papers continues the annual series of U.S. Geological Survey reports on geologic investigations in Alaska. Contributions include 14 Articles and 5 shorter Geologic Notes that report results from all corners of the State. USGS activities in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of earth science topics, including the environment, hazards, resources, and geologic framework studies. Three articles focus on the environmental geochemistry of parts of south-central, west-central, and southwestern Alaska. An article on methane released from permafrost near Fairbanks and a note on paleowind direction indicators on the Arctic coastal plain contribute to ongoing climate and paleoclimate investigations. Landslide hazards in the Talkeetna Mountains and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park are discussed in two notes. Possible active fault traces near Alaska's main population center are described in an article on the Castle Mountain fault. An article on Aniakchak volcano presents evidence for a previously unrecognized catastrophic flooding event. Resources and resource assessment on gold, base metals, and coal are discussed in several articles and a note. Geologic framework studies cover tectonics, paleontology, stratigraphy, and metamorphic petrology. One contribution involves field methods; it evaluates the relative accuracy of global positioning systems and topographic map-based methods for deriving location data for field stations. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports about Alaska in USGS publications released in 1993 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications in 1993.

Alaska↗
USGS2002

Geologic map of the Corona South 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and Orange counties, California

Open-File Report 01-021 contains a digital geologic map database of the Corona South 7.5’ quadrangle, Riverside County, California that includes: 1. ARC/INFO (Environmental Systems Research Institute, http://www.esri.com) version 7.2.1 coverages of the various elements of the geologic map. 2. A Postscript file to plot the geologic map on a topographic base, and containing a Correlation of Map Units diagram (CMU), a Description of Map Units (DMU), and an index map. 3. Portable Document Format (.pdf) files of: a. A Readme file; includes in Appendix I, data contained in crs_met.txt b. The same graphic as plotted in 2 above. Test plots have not produced 1:24,000-scale map sheets. Adobe Acrobat page size setting influences map scale. The Correlation of Map Units and Description of Map Units is in the editorial format of USGS Geologic Investigations Series (I-series) maps but has not been edited to comply with I-map standards. Within the geologic map data package, map units are identified by standard geologic map criteria such as formation-name, age, and lithology. Where known, grain size is indicated on the map by a subscripted letter or letters following the unit symbols as follows: lg, large boulders; b, boulder; g, gravel; a, arenaceous; s, silt; c, clay; e.g. Qyfa is a predominantly young alluvial fan deposit that is arenaceous. Multiple letters are used for more specific identification or for mixed units, e.g., Qfysa is a silty sand. In some cases, mixed units are indicated by a compound symbol; e.g., Qyf2sc. Marine deposits are in part overlain by local, mostly alluvial fan, deposits and are labeled Qomf. Grain size follows f. Even though this is an Open-File Report and includes the standard USGS Open-File disclaimer, the report closely adheres to the stratigraphic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. Descriptions of units can be obtained by viewing or plotting the .pdf file (3b above) or plotting the postscript file (2 above).

California↗
USGS2014

The hydrogeology of the Tully Valley, Onondaga County, New York: an overview of research, 1992-2012

Onondaga Creek begins approximately 15 miles south of Syracuse, New York, and flows north through the Onondaga Indian Nation, then through Syracuse, and finally into Onondaga Lake in central New York. Tully Valley is in the upper part of the Onondaga Creek watershed between U.S. Route 20 and the Valley Heads end moraine near Tully, N.Y. Tully Valley has a history of several unusual hydrogeologic phenomena that affected past land use and the water quality of Onondaga Creek; the phenomena are still present and continue to affect the area today (2014). These phenomena include mud volcanoes or mudboils, landslides, and land-surface subsidence; all are considered to be naturally occurring but may also have been influenced by human activity. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Onondaga Lake Partnership, began a study of the Tully Valley mudboils beginning in October 1991 in hopes of understanding (1) what drives mudboil activity in order to remediate mudboil influence on the water quality of Onondaga Creek, and (2) land-surface subsidence issues that have caused a road bridge to collapse, a major pipeline to be rerouted, and threatened nearby homes. Two years into this study, the 1993 Tully Valley landslide occurred just over 1 mile northwest of the mudboils. This earth slump-mud flow was the largest landslide in New York in more than 70 years (Fickies, 1993); this event provided additional insight into the geology and hydrology of the valley. As the study of the Tully Valley mudboils progressed, other unusual hydrogeologic phenomena were found within the Tully Valley and provided the opportunity to perform short-term, small-scale studies, some of which became graduate student theses—Burgmeier (1998), Curran (1999), Morales-Muniz (2000), Baldauf (2003), Epp (2005), Hackett, (2007), Tamulonis (2010), and Sinclair (2013). The unusual geology and hydrology of the Tully Valley, having been investigated for more than two decades, provides the basis for this report.

New York↗
USGS1995

Geologic and societal factors affecting the international oceanic transport of aggregate

Crushed stone and sand and gravel are the two main sources of natural aggregate, and together comprise approximately half the volume and tonnage of mined material in the United States. Natural aggregate is a bulky, heavy material without special or unique properties, and it is commonly used near its source of production to minimize haulage cost. However, remoteness is no longer an absolute disqualifier for the production of aggregate. Today interstate aggregate routinely is shipped hundreds of kilometers by rail and barge. In addition, during 1992, the United States imported 1,317,000 metric tons of aggregate from Canada and 1,531,000 metric tons from Mexico. A number of ports on the Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast of the United States receive imports of crushed stone from foreign sources for transport to various parts of the eastern United States. These areas either lack adequate supplies of aggregate or are augmenting their supplies because they have difficulties meeting current demand. These difficulties may include poor stone quality, environmental permitting problems, or transportation. Certain societal and geologic conditions of New York City and Philadelphia along the Atlantic Coast, and Tampa and New Orleans along the Gulf Coast, are discussed to demonstrate the different combinations of issues that contribute to the economic viability of importing crushed stone. ?? 1995 Oxford University Press.

Nonrenewable Resources↗
USGS2001

Geologic map of the San Bernardino North 7.5' quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California

Introduction Open-File Report OF 01-131 contains a digital geologic map database of the San Bernardino North 7.5’ quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California that includes: 1. ARC/INFO (Environmental Systems Research Institute) version 7.2.1 coverages of the various components of the geologic map 2. A PostScript file to plot the geologic map on a topographic base, and containing a Correlation of Map Units (CMU) diagram, a Description of Map Units (DMU), an index map, and a regional structure map. 3. Portable Document Format (.pdf) files of: a. This Readme; includes an Appendix, containing data found in sbnorth_met.txt . b. The Description of Map Units identical to that found on the plot of the PostScript file. c. The same graphic as plotted in 2 above. (Test plots from this .pdf do not produce 1:24,000-scale maps. Use Adobe Acrobat pagesize setting to control map scale.) The Correlation of Map Units and Description of Map Units is in the editorial format of USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series (I-series) maps. Within the geologic map data package, map units are identified by standard geologic map criteria such as formation-name, age, and lithology. Even though this is an author-prepared report, every attempt has been made to closely adhere to the stratigraphic nomenclature of the U. S. Geological Survey. Descriptions of units can be obtained by viewing or plotting the .pdf file (3b above) or plotting the postscript file (2 above). If roads in some areas, especially forest roads that parallel topographic contours, do not show well on plots of the geologic map, we recommend use of the USGS San Bernardino North 7.5’ topographic quadrangle in conjunction with the geologic map.

California↗
USGS2001

Mississippi/Alabama pinnacle trend ecosystem monitoring Final Synthesis Report

This Final Synthesis Report summarizes a four-year program to characterize and monitor carbonate mounds on the Mississippi/Alabama outer continental shelf (OCS). The study area is shown in Fig.ES.1. The study was conducted by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) of Texas A&M University (TAMU), for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological Resources Division.

Biological Science Report↗
USGS1999

Workplan for U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic data-collection and support activities on Fort Wainwright, Alaska, 1994-97

The U.S. Army Alaska is responsible for environmental activities on Fort Wainwright near Fairbanks, Alaska. In order to better meet the needs of environmental investigations, the Army requires geohydrologic information about the Fort Wainwright area. Since 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey has been working in cooperation with the U.S. Army Alaska and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to investigate the geohydrology of the Fort Wainwright area. The primary objectives of the study are to collect basic ground-water and surface-water data and to support ongoing environmental investigations by other agencies. This report is the workplan describing the technical methods used by the USGS to meet these objectives. It includes details on field procedures, data collection, and analyses of water samples.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1972

Preliminary photointerpretation map of landslide and other surficial deposits of the Mount Hamilton quadrangle and parts of the Mount Boardman and San Jose quadrangles, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California

The nine San Francisco Bay region counties lie within a geologically active, young, and dynamic part of the central and northern Coast Ranges of California. Significant movements of the earth's crust are occurring here at the present time, posing numerous problems to urbanization, including some of special concern. Geological processes such as fault movements, earthquakes, land subsidence, landsliding, slow downslope movement of bedrock and surficial materials, coastal and stream erosion, flooding, and sedimentation are all potentially hazardous. Because of these factors, an understanding of the operation of physical processes in the bay region is desirable for harmonious, efficient, and safe land-use planning, particularly now, with greatly expanded pressures for urban growth. This map presents preliminary information about one aspect of the physical environment necessary to sound land-use planning--the nature and distribution of surficial deposits. Because surficial deposits are common and well developed in much of the bay region, it is useful to know how and why they have formed, as well as what properties they possess. When maps like this are used in combination with other types of environmental information, such as data on soils, bedrock geology, slopes, vegetation, climatic variation, seismic response, and hydrology, it should be easier to arrive at sound decisions regarding the physical aspects of land use. The U.S. Geological Survey is studying many of these factors in the bay region and hopes to provide the community with much of the required information as part of its San Francisco Bay Region Study in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The representation of surficial deposits on this map reflects the way in which a geologist, working exclusively with aerial photographs, interpreted the origin of various elements of the present landscape. The deposits shown here have not been examined in the field. However, by viewing overlapping vertical aerial photographs through a stereoscope, the geologist sees a three-dimensional relief model of the ground surface and can study and interpret the origins of landforms with considerable ease. In fact, for mapping surficial deposits, particularly in reconnaissance-type studies, photointerpretation has advantages over both ground observations and laboratory studies of surficial materials. Of course, better information can be provided when all aspects of the study are integrated. These preliminary photointerpretation maps are only the first stage in a detailed study of surficial deposits in the bay region, but they should provide land-use planners with immediately useful information about the regional distribution of landslide and other surficial deposits. This map indicates the dominant surficial processes that have probably been operative by showing the distribution of different types of surficial deposits. Processes such as weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and the slow as well as rapid downslope movement of earth materials have constantly reshaped the land surface in the past and will continue to in the future, although at varying rates. The processes are interrelated to varying degrees. For example, crustal uplift of the Coast Ranges will lead to increased erosion and downcutting by streams that in turn generally results in increased deposition of sediments in river valleys, lakes, and shoreline areas. Older flood planes and river deposits may be eroded, leaving elevated terrace deposits. In addition, downcutting by streams may cause adjacent slopes to become unstable, thereby increasing the possibility of slope failures. Man's activities can alter natural physical processes in many ways. Simple acts such as overwatering a lawn or placing a septic tank drainfield in ground that is marginally stable may weaken the bedrock and surficial materials enough to induce landsliding. Relatively stable areas may be made unstable as a result of construction activities that involve cutting or oversteepening of natural slopes. Engineers, builders, conservationists, and others concerned with land use must evaluate the potential effects of all types of development, and maps that show the nature and distribution of surficial deposits should provide much of the basic information they need. This map, then, shows the cumulative effects of various processes that have yielded surficial deposits up to the time the photographs used for photointerpretation were taken. It does not indicate directly areas where processes will be most active, nor does it show the rate at which they will operate. However, knowledge of the history of geologic events is a key to understanding and predicting the evolution of an area, even where man's activities significantly change the character of the land. Almost all new landslides, for example, occur in areas with a history of landslide activity.

California↗
USGS2008

Effects of Land-Use Changes and Ground-Water Withdrawals on Stream Base Flow, Pocono Creek Watershed, Monroe County, Pennsylvania

The Pocono Creek watershed drains 46.5 square miles in eastern Monroe County, Pa. Between 2000 and 2020, the population of Monroe County is expected to increase by 70 percent, which will result in substantial changes in land-use patterns. An evaluation of the effect of reduced recharge from land-use changes and additional ground-water withdrawals on stream base flow was done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Delaware River Basin Commission as part of the USEPA?s Framework for Sustainable Watershed Management Initiative. Two models were used. A Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model developed by the USEPA provided areal recharge values for 2000 land use and projected full buildout land use. The USGS MODFLOW-2000 ground-water-flow model was used to estimate the effect of reduced recharge from changes in land use and additional ground-water withdrawals on stream base flow. This report describes the ground-water-flow-model simulations. The Pocono Creek watershed is underlain by sedimentary rock of Devonian age, which is overlain by a veneer of glacial deposits. All water-supply wells are cased into and derive water from the bedrock. In the ground-water-flow model, the surficial geologic units were grouped into six categories: (1) moraine deposits, (2) stratified drift, (3) lake deposits, (4) outwash, (5) swamp deposits, and (6) undifferentiated deposits. The unconsolidated surficial deposits are not used as a source of water. The ground-water and surface-water systems are well connected in the Pocono Creek watershed. Base flow measured on October 13, 2004, at 27 sites for model calibration showed that streams gained water between all sites measured except in the lower reach of Pocono Creek. The ground-water-flow model included the entire Pocono Creek watershed. Horizontally, the modeled area was divided into a 53 by 155 cell grid with 6,060 active cells. Vertically, the modeled area was discretized into four layers. Layers 1 and 2 represented the unconsolidated surficial deposits where they are present and bedrock where the surficial deposits are absent. Layer 3 represented shallow bedrock and was 200 ft (feet) thick. Layer 4 represented deep bedrock and was 300 ft thick. A total of 873 cells representing streams were assigned to layer 1. Recharge rates for model calibration were provided by the USEPA SWAT model for 2000 land-use conditions. Recharge rates for 2000 for the 29 subwatersheds in the SWAT model ranged from 6.11 to 22.66 inches per year. Because the ground-water-flow model was calibrated to base-flow data collected on October 13, 2004, the 2000 recharge rates were multiplied by 1.18 so the volume of recharge was equal to the volume of streamflow measured at the mouth of Pocono Creek. During model calibration, adjustments were made to aquifer hydraulic conductivity and streambed conductance. Simulated base flows and hydraulic heads were compared to measured base flows and hydraulic heads using the root mean squared error (RMSE) between measured and simulated values. The RMSE of the calibrated model for base flow was 4.7 cubic feet per second for 27 locations, and the RMSE for hydraulic heads for 15 locations was 35 ft. The USEPA SWAT model was used to provide areal recharge values for 2000 and full buildout land-use conditions. The change in recharge ranged from an increase of 37.8 percent to a decrease of 60.8 percent. The ground-water-flow model was used to simulate base flow for 2000 and full buildout land-use conditions using steady-state simulations. The decrease in simulated base flow ranged from 3.8 to 63 percent at the streamflow-measurement sites. Simulated base flow at streamflow-gaging station Pocono Creek above Wigwam Run near Stroudsburg, Pa. (01441495), decreased 25 percent. This is in general agreement with the SWAT model, which estimated a 30.6-percent loss in base flow at the streamflow-gaging station.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1997

Precipitation-runoff and streamflow-routing models for the Willamette River basin, Oregon

Precipitation-runoff and streamflow-routing models were constructed and assessed as part of a water-quality study of the Willamette River Basin. The study was a cooperative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and was coordinated with the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study of the Willamette River. Routing models are needed to estimate streamflow so that water-quality constituent loads can be calculated from measured concentrations and so that sources, sinks, and downstream changes in those loads can be identified. Runoff models are needed to estimate ungaged-tributary inflows for routing models and to identify flow contributions from different parts of the basin. The runoff and routing models can be run either separately or together to simulate streamflow at various locations and to examine streamflow contributions from overland flow, shallow-subsurface flow, and ground-water flow. The 11,500-square-mile Willamette River Basin was partitioned into 21 major basins and 253 subbasins. For each subbasin, digital data layers of land use, soils, geology, and topography were combined in a geographic information system (GIS) to define hydrologic response units (HRU's), the basic computational unit for the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS). Spatial data layers were also used to calculate noncalibrated PRMS parameter values. Other PRMS parameter values were obtained from 10 nearby calibrated subbasins of representative location and character. About 760 miles of the Willamette River system were partitioned into 4 main-stem networks and 17 major tributary networks for streamflow routing. Data from time-of-travel studies, discharge measurements, and flood analyses were used to develop equations that related stream cross-sectional area to discharge and stream width to discharge. These relations were derived for all 21 stream networks at approximately 3-mile intervals and used in the Diffusion Analogy Flow model (DAFLOW) in streamflow routing. Ten representative runoff models and 11 network-routing models were calibrated for water years 1972-75 and verified for water years 1976-78. These were the periods with the most complete and widespread streamflow record for the Willamette River Basin. Observed and estimated daily precipitation and daily minimum and maximum air temperature were used as input to the runoff models. The resulting coefficient of determination (R2) for the representative runoff models ranged from 0.69 to 0.93 for the calibration period and from 0.63 to 0.92 for the verification period; absolute errors ranged from 18 to 39 percent and from 27 to 51 percent, respectively. Bias error for the runoff modeling ranged from + 13 to -32 percent. Observed daily streamflow data were used as input to the network-routing models where available, and simulated streamflows from runoff model results were used for ungaged areas. Absolute error for the network-routing models ranged from about 21 percent for the Molalla River model, for which 70 percent of the subbasin was ungaged, to about 4 percent for the Willamette main-stem model (Albany to Salem), for which only 9 percent of the subbasin was ungaged. With an input of current streamflow, precipitation, and air temperature data the combined runoff and routing models can provide current estimates of streamflow at almost 500 locations on the main stem and major tributaries of the Willamette River with a high degree of accuracy. Relative contributions of surface runoff, subsurface flow, and ground-water flow can be assessed for 1 to 10 HRU classes in each of 253 subbasins identified for precipitation-runoff modeling. Model outputs were used with a water-quality model to simulate the movement of dye in the Pudding River as an example

Oregon↗