SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Agricultural Engineering”

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.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

USGS2015

Methods for evaluating potential sources of chloride in surface waters and groundwaters of the conterminous United States

Chloride exists as a major ion in most natural waters, but many anthropogenic sources are increasing concentrations of chloride in many receiving waters. Although natural concentrations in continental waters can be as high as 200,000 milligrams per liter, chloride concentrations that are suitable for freshwater ecology, human consumption, and agricultural and industrial water uses commonly are on the order of 10 to 1,000 milligrams per liter. “Road salt” frequently is identified as the sole source of anthropogenic chloride, but only about 30 percent of the salt consumed and released to the environment is used for deicing. Furthermore, several studies in Southern States where the use of deicing salt is minimal also show anthropogenic chloride in rising concentrations and in strong correlation to imperviousness and road density. This is because imperviousness and road density also are strongly correlated to population density. The term “road salt” is a misnomer because deicers applied to parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways can be a substantial source of chloride in some catchments because these land covers are comparable to roadways as a percentage of the total impervious area and commonly receive higher salt application rates than some roadways. Other sources of anthropogenic chloride include wastewater, dust control on unpaved roads, fertilizer, animal waste, irrigation, aquaculture, energy production wastes, and landfill leachates. The assumption that rising chloride concentrations in surface water or groundwater is indicative of contamination by deicing chemicals rather than one or more other potential sources may preclude the identification of toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or endocrine-disrupting contaminants that are associated with many sources of elevated chloride concentrations. Once the sources of anthropogenic chloride in an area of interest have been identified and measured, water and solute budgets can be estimated to guide decisionmakers to identify and apply potential mitigation measures that can reduce the problem. Scientists, engineers, regulators, and decisionmakers need information about potential sources of chloride, water and solute budgets, and methods for collecting water-quality data to help identify potential sources. This information is needed to evaluate potential sources of chloride in areas where chloride may have adverse ecological effects or may degrade water supplies used for drinking water, agriculture, or industry. Knowledge of potential sources will help decisionmakers identify the best mitigation measures to reduce the total background chloride load, thereby reducing the potential for water-quality exceedances that occur because of superposition on rising background concentrations. Also, knowledge of potential sources may help decisionmakers identify the potential for the presence of contaminants that have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or endocrine-disrupting effects at concentrations that are lower by orders of magnitude than the chloride concentrations in the source water. This report is a comprehensive synthesis of relevant information, but it is not the result of an exhaustive search for literature on each topic. The potential adverse effects of chloride on infrastructure and the environment are not discussed in this report because these issues have been extensively documented elsewhere.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2003

Pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls in transport in two Atlantic coastal plain tributaries and loadings to Chesapeake Bay

Concentrations of current-use pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and organochlorine (OC) insecticides were determined above the reach of tide in the Chesterville Branch and Nanticoke River on the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay during base-flow and storm-flow hydrologic regimes to evaluate mass transport to Chesapeake Bay. The two rivers monitored showed relatively high concentrations of atrazine, simazine, alachlor, and metolachlor in comparison to previously investigated western shore tributaries, and reflected the predominant agricultural land use in the eastern shore watersheds. The four current use pesticides showed the greatest seasonal contribution to annual loadings to tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay from the two rivers, and the relative order of annual loadings for the other contaminant classes was PAHs > PCBs > OC insecticides. Annual loadings normalized to the landscape areas of selected Chesapeake Bay watersheds showed correlations to identifiable source areas, with the highest pesticide yields (g/km2/yr) occurring in eastern shore agricultural landscapes, and the highest PAH yields derived from urban regions.

Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part↗

USGS1947

Preliminary report on the general geology and engineering geology of Noonan quadrangle, North Dakota

The Noonan quadrangle is in northwestern North Dakota adjacent to the Dominion of Canada and approximately 35 miles east of Montana. The small coal-mining, farm, and railroad town of Noonan is located near the eastern edge of this sparsely populated area. The east-west State Highway 5 bisects the quadrangle. Cultural development in this area depends largely on agricultural exploitation of the glacial deposits that mantle the bedrock. For this reason, emphasis in this report is on the description, classification, and analysis of the surficial deposits. The geologic map is the base of the report. The map explanation includes a description of the material found in the various deposits along with the distinctive topographic and lithologic characteristics. Most of the text and the analyses of samples are written in tabular form so that specific information may be easily found. Depth relations may be determined from the cross section attached and the data on the map page. Most of the subsurface data in this report are inferred from drill-hole logs and water-well information provided by the North Dakota State Geological Survey, the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Ground Water Division of the U. S. Geological Survey.

North Dakota↗

USGS2015

Interactions of water quality and integrated groundwater management: Examples from the United States and Europe

Groundwater is available in many parts of the world, but the quality of the water may limit its use. Contaminants can limit the use of groundwater through concerns associated with human health, aquatic health, economic costs, or even societal perception. Given this broad range of concerns, this chapter focuses on examples of how water quality issues influence integrated groundwater management. One example evaluates the importance of a naturally occurring contaminant Arsenic (As) for drinking water supply, one explores issues resulting from agricultural activities on the land surface and factors that influence related groundwater management, and the last examines unique issues that result from human-introduced viral pathogens for groundwater-derived drinking water vulnerability. The examples underscore how integrated groundwater management lies at the intersections of environmental characterization, engineering constraints, societal needs, and human perception of acceptable water quality. As such, water quality factors can be a key driver for societal decision making.

Book chapter↗

USGS2009

A Whole-System Approach to Understanding Agricultural Chemicals in the Environment

The effects of the use of agricultural chemicals and other practices associated with agriculture on the quality of streams and groundwater is well known; however, less is known about how those effects may vary across different geographic regions of the Nation. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are conducting studies on the transport and fate of agricultural chemicals in diverse agricultural settings across the country using comparable and consistent methodology and study designs (fig. 1; Capel and others, 2004; Capel and others, 2008). Assessments in five study areas have been completed, and the results highlight how environmental processes and agricultural practices interact to affect the movement and transformation of agricultural chemicals in the environment. The studies address major environmental compartments, including surface water, groundwater, the unsaturated zone, the streambed, and the atmosphere, as well as the pathways that interconnect these compartments. The study areas represent major agricultural settings, such as irrigated diverse cropping in the West and corn and soybean row cropping in the Midwest and, therefore, findings are relevant throughout much of the Nation.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS1975

Water resources of the Toppenish Creek Basin, Yakima Indian Reservation, Washington

The Yakima River, which flows along the eastern margin of the Yakima Indian Reservation, provides about 93 percent of the irrigation water for the eastern part of the Toppenish Creek basin--the major agricultural area in the basin . During 1972, the total surface water diverted from all streams and from ground-water irrigation was nearly 700,000 acre-feet (863 million cubic metres).

Washington↗

USGS2013

Restoring the Great Lakes: DOI stories of success and partnership in implementing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

The Great Lakes are a monumentally unique national treasure containing nearly ninety-five percent of the United States' fresh surface water. Formed by receding glaciers, the Great Lakes support a thriving, resilient ecosystem rich with fish, wildlife, and abundant natural resources. The Great Lakes also support an array of commercial uses, including shipping, and provide a source of recreation, drinking water, and other critical services that drive the economy of the region and the Nation. Regrettably, activities such as clear cutting of mature forests, over-harvesting of fish populations, industrial pollution, invasive species, and agricultural runoffs have degraded these treasured lakes over the decades creating long-term impacts to the surrounding watershed. Fortunately, the people who live, work, and recreate in the region recognize the critical importance of a healthy Great Lakes ecosystem, and have come together to support comprehensive restoration. To stimulate and promote the goal of a healthy Great Lakes region, President Obama and Congress created the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in 2009. This program provides the seed money to clean up legacy pollution, restore habitats, protect wildlife, combat invasive species, and address agricultural runoff in the Great Lakes watershed. At the same time GLRI promotes public outreach, education, accountability, and partnerships.

The Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Committee on glaciers, 1939–40

The Committee on Glaciers is now composed of the following members: Harry Fielding Reid, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Johns Hopkins University, 608 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, Maryland; William H. Hobbs, Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Lawrence Martin, Chief of the Division of Maps, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; J. E. Church, Professor of Meteorology, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada; Wm. Osgood Field, Jr., Explorer, 18 West Twelfth Street, New York, N.Y.; Earl A. Trager, Chief of the Naturalist Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.; Oliver Kehrlein, Chairman, Committee on Glacier Studies, 1050 Mills Tower, 220 Bush Street, San Francisco, California; Kenneth N. Phillips, Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, Chairman, Research Committee of the Mazamas, 606 Post‐Office Building, Portland, Oregon; William S. Cooper, Professor of Botany, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Gerald FitzGerald, Senior Topographic Engineer, Alaska Branch, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.; Lawrence M. Gould, Professor of Geology, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota; François E. Matthes (Chairman), Senior Geologist, Section of Glacial Geology, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. The international relations of the Committee have changed somewhat during the past year as a result of the consolidation of the International Commission of Glaciers with the International Commission of Snow. That consolidation was effected by the International Association of Scientific Hydrology (to which both commissions belonged) at the triennial meeting in Washington, in September, 1939. Inasmuch as the membership of the new International Commission of Snow and Glaciers comprises the personnel of the two former commissions, our Committee on Glaciers now automatically is represented on the new International Commission by four men—Church, Hobbs, Gould, and Matthes. Moreover, Church is acting President, and it is understood that he will become President as soon as the political situation in Europe permits the holding of a formal election of officers at which all nations interested can exercise their right of voting

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗

USGS2022

New generation hyperspectral sensors DESIS and PRISMA provide improved agricultural crop classifications

Using new remote sensing technology to study agricultural crops will support advances in food and water security. The recently launched, new generation spaceborne hyperspectral sensors, German DLR Earth Sensing Imaging Spectrometer (DESIS) and Italian PRecursore IperSpettrale della Missione Applicativa (PRISMA), provide unprecedented data in hundreds of narrow spectral bands for the study of the Earth. Therefore, our overarching goal in this study was to use these data to explore advances that can be made in agricultural research. We selected PRISMA and DESIS images during the 2020 growing season in California's Central Valley to study seven major crops. PRISMA and DESIS images were highly correlated (R 2of 0.9–0.95). Out of the 235 DESIS bands (400–1000 nm) and 238 PRISMA bands (400–2500 nm), 26 (11%) and 45 (19%) bands, respectively, were optimal to study agricultural crops. These optimal bands provided crop type classification accuracies of 83–90%. Hyperspectral vegetation indices to estimate plant pigment content, stress, biomass, moisture, and cellulose/lignin content were also identified.

California↗

USGS2024

Special topic—Eruption plumes and clouds

Introduction Explosive eruptions create plumes of volcanic ash and gas that can rise more than 30,000 feet (9.1 kilometers [km]) above sea level within minutes of eruption onset. The resulting clouds disperse under prevailing winds and may cause hazardous conditions hundreds to thousands of kilometers from the volcano, including in international airspace. Rapid detection and characterization of explosive activity is vital to mitigate the wide-ranging effects of volcanic ash. Ashfall thicknesses as small as a millimeter or so on the ground can affect infrastructure, agriculture, and air quality, requiring extensive clean-up procedures (Schuster, 1981; Warrick and others, 1981, U.S. Geological Survey, 2022). Volcanic clouds also pose substantial threats to aircraft. Since 1953, 88 encounters between airplanes and ash clouds have been documented worldwide (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2015, appendix F), resulting in aircraft damage and, in 9 cases, engine failure (Guffanti and others, 2010). In 1982, two large passenger planes suffered complete engine failure owing to eruptions in Indonesia (Global Volcanism Program, 1982) and a similar incident occurred over Alaska in 1989 (Casadevall, 1994). In all three cases, they were able to restart some engine capability and land safely once they emerged from the ash clouds, although with substantial damage (Guffanti and others, 2010). The clear threat to aviation has led to establishment of nine Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAAC) around the world to monitor and rapidly disseminate information about volcanic eruptions to the aviation community. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories issue the Volcano Observatory Notice for Aviation that informs of preeruptive unrest or eruptive activity. When ash-producing eruptions do occur, volcano observatories work closely with their regional VAAC to ensure consistency and accuracy in eruption onset time, cloud altitude, ash production, and duration as reported in Volcanic Ash Advisories. Explosive volcanism in the United States and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands prompts 50–100 such advisories in any given year (table J1). This collaborative effort is greatly aided by USGS detection and monitoring of eruption clouds to ensure a timely and coordinated response. To support these efforts to provide guidance on ash transport and fallout, the USGS developed the Ash3d volcanic ash dispersion model ( https://vsc-ash.wr.usgs.gov/ash3d-gui ) (Schwaiger and others, 2012). Automated simulations are run daily by the USGS for volcanoes that are in elevated states of unrest, and in response mode when eruptions occur. During eruptions, the model output is provided to local National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices to guide them in the issuance of their information products (such as special weather statements, ashfall advisories, or ashfall warnings), as well as to State and local governments and the public. Characterization of the eruption source is needed to estimate the parameters used to initialize the Ash3d model, and by the Anchorage and Washington VAACs to initialize other dispersion models that inform forecasts for the airborne volcanic cloud. The source parameters that can be provided by observation during an eruption include eruption start time, eruption cloud height over time, and eruption duration. Other, nonobservable source parameters, such as mass eruption rate and grain-size distribution, are based on empirical correlations and study of historical deposits. The goal is to provide a time series of cloud heights, mass eruption rates, and particle-size distributions that accurately reflects current conditions. When feasible, the USGS also provides guidance on the nature of ongoing eruptions and forecasts future activity using petrologic monitoring of collected tephra samples. The aims of providing accurate observable parameters are achieved through analysis of (1) near-real-time meteorological satellite data, (2) ground-based cameras (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–G, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062g.">chapter G , this volume; Orr and others, 2024), (3) weather radar, (4) volcanic lightning detection, and (5) ground-based ash sensors and sampling. Explosive eruptions can be detected by a variety of geophysical monitoring, including infrasound (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–C, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062c.">chapter C , this volume; Lyons and others, 2024) and seismicity (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–B, 9 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062b.">chapter B , this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). However, those methods cannot quantify the altitude, ash content, and dispersal dynamics of resulting volcanic clouds. Ideally, all available sources of monitoring data are synthesized to develop a coherent understanding of eruptive activity. The guidance summarized here provides a framework for characterizing volcanic clouds in the atmosphere and tracking the evolution of explosive eruption dynamics.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS1996

U. S. Geological Survey programs in Pennsylvania

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is involved in mapping and studying land, mineral, biological, and water resources and determining the risk from earthquakes and other natural hazards, which are of importance to the citizens of Pennsylvania. This Fact Sheet describes how the USGS is addressing some of the major environmental issues in Pennsylvania, which include availability of mineral resources; contamination of the environment by hazardous wastes; effects of coal mining, oil and gas production, and agriculture on the environment; nutrient input to streams and estuaries; and adequacy of good-quality water supplies. Information on acquiring the thousands of map, book, and aerial photographic products of the USGS also is given.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2007

Hydrostratigraphic Framework and Selection and Correlation of Geophysical Log Markers in the Surficial Aquifer System, Palm Beach County, Florida

The surficial aquifer system is the major source of freshwater for public water supply in Palm Beach County, Florida, yet many previous studies of the hydrogeology of this aquifer system have focused only on the eastern one-half to one-third of the county in the more densely populated coastal area (Land and others, 1973; Swayze and others, 1980; Swayze and Miller, 1984; Shine and others, 1989). Population growth in the county has resulted in the westward expansion of urbanized areas into agricultural areas and has created new demands on the water resources of the county. Additionally, interest in surface-water resources of central and western areas of the county has increased. In these areas, plans for additional surface-water storage reservoirs are being made under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan originally proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District (1999), and stormwater treatment areas have been constructed by the South Florida Water Management District. Surface-water and ground-water interactions in the Everglades are thought to be important to water budgets, water quality, and ecology (Harvey and others, 2002). Most of the previous hydrogeologic and ground-water flow simulation studies of the surficial aquifer system have not utilized a hydrostratigraphic framework, in which stratigraphic or sequence stratigraphic units, such as those proposed in Cunningham and others (2001), are delineated in this stratigraphically complex aquifer system. A thick zone of secondary permeability mapped by Swayze and Miller (1984) was not subdivided and was identified as only being within the Anastasia Formation of Pleistocene age. Miller (1987) published 11 geologic sections of the surficial aquifer system, but did not delineate any named stratigraphic units in these sections. This limited interpretation has resulted, in part, from the complex facies changes within rocks and sediments of the surficial aquifer system and the seemingly indistinct and repetitious nature of the most common lithologies, which include sand, shell, sandstone, and limestone. Model construction and layer definition in a simulation of ground-water flow within the surficial aquifer system of Palm Beach County utilized only the boundaries of one or two major hydrogeologic zones, such as the Biscayne aquifer and surficial aquifer system; otherwise layers were defined by average elevations rather than geologic structure or stratigraphy (Shine and others, 1989). Additionally, each major permeable zone layer in the model was assumed to have constant hydraulic conductivity with no allowance for the possibility of discrete (thin) flow zones within the zone. The key to understanding the spatial distribution and hydraulic connectivity of permeable zones in the surficial aquifer system beneath Palm Beach County is the development of a stratigraphic framework based on a consistent method of county-wide correlation. Variability in hydraulic properties in the system needs to be linked to the stratigraphic units delineated in this framework, and proper delineation of the hydrostratigraphic framework should provide a better understanding and simulation of the ground-water flow system. In 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the South Florida Water Management District, initiated an investigation to develop a hydrostratigraphic framework for the surficial aquifer system in Palm Beach County.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS2009

Floods of Selected Streams in Arkansas, Spring 2008

Floods can cause loss of life and extensive destruction to property. Monitoring floods and understanding the reasons for their occurrence are the responsibility of many Federal agencies. The National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey are among the most visible of these agencies. Together, these three agencies collect and analyze floodflow information to better understand the variety of mechanisms that cause floods, and how the characteristics and frequencies of floods vary with time and location. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored and assessed the quantity of streamflow in our Nation's streams since the agency's inception in 1879. Because of ongoing collection and assessment of streamflow data, the USGS can provide information about a range of surface-water issues including the suitability of water for public supply and irrigation and the effects of agriculture and urbanization on streamflow. As part of its streamflow-data collection activities, the USGS measured streamflow in multiple streams during extreme flood events in Arkansas in the spring of 2008. The analysis of streamflow information collected during flood events such as these provides a scientific basis for decision making related to resource management and restoration. Additionally, this information can be used by water-resource managers to better define flood-hazard areas and to design bridges, culverts, dams, levees, and other structures. Water levels (stage) and streamflow (discharge) currently are being monitored in near real-time at approximately 150 locations in Arkansas. The streamflow-gaging stations measure and record hydrologic data at 15-minute or hourly intervals; the data then are transmitted through satellites to the USGS database and displayed on the internet every 1 to 4 hours. Streamflow-gaging stations in Arkansas are part of a network of over 7,500 active streamflow-gaging stations operated by the USGS throughout the United States in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local government agencies. In Arkansas, the major supporters of the streamflow-gaging network are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, and Arkansas Geological Survey. Many other Federal, State, and local government entities provide additional support for streamflow-gaging stations. It is the combined support of the USGS and all funding partners that make it possible to maintain an adequate streamflow-gaging network in Arkansas. Data collected over the years at streamflow-gaging stations can be used to characterize the relative magnitude of flood events and their statistical frequency of occurrence. These analyses provide water-resource managers with accurate and reliable hydrologic information based on present and historical flow conditions. Continued collection of streamflow data, with consideration of changes in land use, agricultural practices, and climate change, will help scientists to more accurately characterize the magnitude of extreme floods in the future.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS1998

Water for the Nation: An overview of the USGS Water Resources Division

The Water Resources Division (WRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides reliable, impartial, timely information needed to understand the Nation's water resources. WRD actively promotes the use of this information by decisionmakers to: * Minimize the loss of life and property as a result of water-related hazards such as floods, droughts, and land movement. * Effectively manage ground-water and surface-water resources for domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and ecological uses. * Protect and enhance water resources for human health, aquatic health, and environmental quality. * Contribute to wise physical and economic development of the Nation's resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

General Information Product↗

USGS1994

Subsidence and carbon fluxes in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, California

The Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta was once tidal marshland and was formed by the confluence of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers. The delta covers more than 1,000 square miles and is bordered by the major population centers of the San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento, and Stockton (fig. 1). The delta took its current form by the 1930's when drainage of 100 islands and tracts and construction of 2,250 miles of levees were completed. The land surface on the delta islands has progressively subsided below sea level since the early 20th century. The integrity of the levee network is threatened because subsidence increases the differences in water levels maintained by the levees, which can cause levee failure and consequent flooding of the delta islands. Levee failure affects the quality and beneficial use of water in the delta, which is the major source of California's water supply to millions of residents and acres of agricultural land. This Fact Sheet briefly summarizes the research done by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources to assess the causes of subsidence, processes that affect subsidence, and carbon fluxes in the delta.

California↗

USGS2013

2011 floods of the central United States

The Central United States experienced record-setting flooding during 2011, with floods that extended from headwater streams in the Rocky Mountains, to transboundary rivers in the upper Midwest and Northern Plains, to the deep and wide sand-bedded lower Mississippi River. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as part of its mission, collected extensive information during and in the aftermath of the 2011 floods to support scientific analysis of the origins and consequences of extreme floods. The information collected for the 2011 floods, combined with decades of past data, enables scientists and engineers from the USGS to provide syntheses and scientific analyses to inform emergency managers, planners, and policy makers about life-safety, economic, and environmental-health issues surrounding flood hazards for the 2011 floods and future floods like it. USGS data, information, and scientific analyses provide context and understanding of the effect of floods on complex societal issues such as ecosystem and human health, flood-plain management, climate-change adaptation, economic security, and the associated policies enacted for mitigation. Among the largest societal questions is "How do we balance agricultural, economic, life-safety, and environmental needs in and along our rivers?" To address this issue, many scientific questions have to be answered including the following: * How do the 2011 weather and flood conditions compare to the past weather and flood conditions and what can we reasonably expect in the future for flood magnitudes? * What is the “natural” hydrology of these watersheds and how have they been changed? * How do rivers change during floods and what effects do they have on the natural and built environment: conversely, what effects do the natural and built environments have on rivers and floods? * Do floods contribute to the transport and fate of contaminants that affect human and ecosystem health? In an effort to help address these and other questions, USGS Professional Paper 1798 consists of independent but complementary chapters dealing with various scientific aspects of the 2011 floods in the Central United States.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2007

Investigating the Environmental Effects of Agriculture Practices on Natural Resources: Scientific Contributions of the U.S. Geological Survey to Enhance the Management of Agricultural Landscapes

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) enhances and protects the quality of life in the United States by advancing scientific knowledge to facilitate effective management of hydrologic, biologic, and geologic resources. Results of selected USGS research and monitoring projects in agricultural landscapes are presented in this Fact Sheet. Significant environmental and social issues associated with agricultural production include changes in the hydrologic cycle; introduction of toxic chemicals, nutrients, and pathogens; reduction and alteration of wildlife habitats; and invasive species. Understanding environmental consequences of agricultural production is critical to minimize unintended environmental consequences. The preservation and enhancement of our natural resources can be achieved by measuring the success of improved management practices and by adjusting conservation policies as needed to ensure long-term protection.

Fact Sheet↗