SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Occasional Publication”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

USGS1968

Infrared survey of the Pisgah Crater area, San Bernardino County, California - a geologic interpretation

The infrared survey of the Pisgah Crater Area, San Bernardino County, California was primarily undertaken to establish parameters by which rock types, structures, and textures peculiar to this locale could be recognized or differentiated. A secondary purpose was to provide an adequate evaluation and calibration of airborne and ground-based instruments used in the survey. Pisgah Crater and its vicinity was chosen as one of the fundamental test sites for the NASA remote sensing program because of its relatively fresh basaltic flows and pyroclastics. Its typical exposure of basalt also made it a possible lunar analogue. A fundamental test site for the purpose of the program is defined as a readily accessible area for which the topography, geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation and other features are relatively well known. All remote sensor instrument teams, i.e. infrared, radar, microwave, and photography, were obligated to use the fundamental test sites for instrument evaluation and to establish terrain identification procedures. Pisgah Crater, nearby Sunshine Cone, and their associated lava flows are in the southern Mojave Desert about 40 miles east-southeast of Barstow, California. (See fig. 1.) U. S. Highway 66 skirts .the northern part of the area and provides access via asphalt-paved and dirt roads to the Crater and to the perimeters of the flows. Pisgah Crater, which is a pumiceous cone, is owned and occasionally quarried by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. The remaining part of the area to the south is within the boundary of the Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms, California and is currently being used as a gunnery, and bombing range. The proximate area to east, west, and north of Pisgah Crater is public domain. Originally, an area totaling 10 square miles was outlined for detailed study. (See plate 1.) This included an 8 mile long strip extending south- east from and including Pisgah Crater to Lavic Dry Lake, and a 2 mile strip aligned to include a portion of the Sunshine lava flow and the dry lake. Additional aerial infrared imagery of the Sunshine and Pisgah flows along the Pisgah fault proved so interesting and informative that this area is included in the discussion. Infrared surveys were flown February ii through 13, 1965 and August 5 and 9, 1966. The initial survey was flown by the NASA personnel aboard the NASA 926 Convair 240 aircraft. Because of technical problems with the infrared scanners (4.5-5.5 and 8-14 micron bands) and with certain ground instruments, most of the imagery and ground temperature data obtained during the initial survey period was of little value. However, excellent infrared imagery in the 8-14 micron (?) region of the spectrum was acquired by the Geological Survey during the August 1966 survey. The scanner was mounted in a Beech D-18 aircraft provided by the Survey's Water Resources Division. Likewise, more reliable ground data was obtained at this time owing to improved instrumentation and technique. Ground data were taken by Geological Survey personnel including W. A. Fischer, J. D. Friedman, W. R. Hemphill, D. L. Daniels, G. R. Boynton, Po W. Philbin and the author. C. R. Fross operated the infrared scanner during the August, 1966 survey and R. M. Turner was-responsible for photo processing of the infrared imagery. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1967

Water resources inventory of Connecticut Part 2: Shetucket River Basin

The Shetucket River basin has a relatively abundant supply of water of generally good quality which is derived from precipitation that has fallen on the basin. Annual precipitation has ranged from about 30 inches to 75 inches and has averaged about 45 inches over a 35-year period. Approximately 20 inches of water are returned to the atmosphere each year by evaporation and transpiration; the remainder of the annual precipitation either flows overland to streams or percolates downward to the water table and ultimately flows out of the basin in the Shetucket River or as underflow through the deposits beneath. During the autumn and winter months precipitation normally is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the amount of water stored underground and in surface reservoirs within the basins whereas in the summer most of the precipitation is lost through evaporation and transpiration, resulting in sharply reduced streamflow and lowered groundwater levels. The mean monthly storage of water in the basin on an average is 3.5 inches higher in November than it is in June. The amount of water that flows out of the basin in the Shetucket River represents the total amount of water potentlally available for use by man. Annual runoff from the entire basin above the Quinebaug River has ranged from about 13 to 42 inches since 1929, and has averaged about 23 inches (300 billion gallons). Although runoff indicates the total amount of water potentially available, it is usually not economically or legally feasible for man to use all of it. On the other hand, with increased development, It is possible that some water will be reused several times. The water available may be tapped as it flows through the area or is temporarily stored in streams, lakes, and aquifers. The amounts that can be developed vary from place to place and time to time, depending on the amount of precipitation, on the size of drainage area, on the thickness, permeability and areal extent of aquifers, and on the variations in chemical and physical quality of the water. Differences in streamflow from point to point are due primarily to differences in the proportion of stratified drift in the drainage basin above each point, which affect the timing of streamflow, and to differences in precipitation, which affect the amount of streamflow. Information on streamflow from gaging stations may be extended to ungaged sites by accounting for both of these factors ,in calculations. Future floods on the upper Willimantic River or the Shetucket River are unlikely to cause major damage so long as buildings are not constructed below the highest flood elevations to be expected with the present system of reservoirs for flood control. Ground water can be obtained from wells almost anywhere in the Shetucket River basin, but the amount obtainable from individual wells at any particular point depends upon the type and water-bearing properties of the aquifers present. For practical purposes, the earth materials in the basin comprise three aquifers--stratified drift, till, and bedrock, Stratified drift is the only aquifer generally capable of yielding more than 100 gpm to individual wells. This aquifer covers about 18 percent of the basin and occurs chiefly In lowlands where it overlies till or bedrock. Coefficient of permeability of the coarse-grained unit of stratified drift averages about 1,900 gpd per sq ft. Drilled, screened wells tapping this unit, are known to yield from 200 to 675 gpm. Dug wells in coarse-grained stratified drift should supply at least 2 gpm per foot of drawdown over an 8-hour period. Fine-grained stratified drift has an average coefficient of permeability of about 400 gpd per sq ft and can usually yield to dug wells supplies sufficient for household use. Till and bedrock are widespread in extent but can provide only small to moderate water supplies. Till is tapped chiefly by dug wells; permanent supplies of more than 200 gpd can be obtained from dug wells at a majority of sites in areas of till, but there are many sites where the till is too impermeable or too thin to provide this much water throughout the year. The coefficient of permeability of till ranges from about 0.2 gpd per sq ft to 55 gpd per sq it. Bedrock Is tapped chiefly by drilled wells, about 90 percent of which will supply at least 3 gpm. Very few, however, will supply more than 50 gpm. The amount of ground water potentially available In an area depends upon the amount of groundwater outflow, the amount of ground water in storage, and the quantity of water available by Induced infiltration from streams and lakes. From data on permeability, saturated thickness, recharge, yield from aquifer storage, well performance, and streamflow, preliminary estimates of ground-water availability can be made for any point in the basin. Long-term yields estimated for 15 areas especially favorable for development of large ground-water supplies ranged from 1.3 to 61.8 mgd. Detailed site studies to determine optimum yields, drawdowns, and spacing of individual wells are needed before major ground-water development is undertaken In these or other areas. The chemical quality of water in the Shetucket basin Is generally good to excellent. Samples of naturally occurring surface water collected from 32 sites contained less than 61 ppm of dissolved solids and less than 32 ppm of hardness. Water from wells is more highly mineralized than naturally occurring water from streams. Even so only 7 percent of wells sampled yielded water with more than 200 ppm of dissolved sol-ids and only 9 percent yielded water with more than 120 ppm of hardness. Even in the major rivers, which are used to transport industrial waste, the dissolved mineral content is less than 100 ppm and hardness rarely exceeds 40 ppm. One notable exception occurs in the lower reaches of Little River where an exceptional amount of industrial waste is discharged into the river near Versailles. This waste is particularly noticeable during low streamflow. Iron and manganese In both ground water and surface water are the only constituents whose concentrations commonly exceed recommended limits for domestic and industrial use. Most wells in the basin yield clear water with little or no iron or manganese, but distributed among them are wells with ground water that contains enough of these dissolved constituents to be troublesome for most uses. iron concentrations in naturally occurring stream water exceeded 0.3 ppm under tow-flow conditions at 20 percent of the sites sampled. Large concentrations of iron in stream water result from discharge of iron-bearing ground water or from the discharge of water from swamps. In swamps the iron is released largely from decaying vegetation. Ground water more than 30 feet below the land surface has a relatively constant temperature, usually between 48°F and 50°F. Water temperature in very shallow wells may fluctuate from about 38°F in February or March to about 55°F in late summer. Water temperature in the larger streams fluctuates much more widely, ranging from 32°F at least for brief periods in winter, to about 85°F occasionally during The quantity of suspended sediment transported by streams in the basin is negligible, though amounts large enough to be troublesome may occur locally at times. The total amount of water used In the Shetucket Rlver basin for all purposes during 1961 was about 5,810 million gallons~ which is equivalent to 208 gpd per person, Public water systems supplied the domestic needs of nearly half the population of the basin; 10 systems were sampled, all of which provided water of better quality than the U.S. Public Health Service suggests for drinking water standards.

Connecticut↗

USGS1976

Water-quality effects on Baker Lake of recent volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington

Increased volcanic activity on Mount Baker, which began in March 1975, represents the greatest known activity of a Cascade Range volcano since eruptions at Lassen Peak, Calif. during 1914-17. Emissions of dust and increased emanations of steam, other gases, and heat from the Sherman Crater area of the mountain focused attention on the possibility of hazardous events, including lava flows, pyroclastic eruptions, avalanches, and mudflows. However, the greatest undesirable natural results that have been observed after one year of the increased activity are an increase in local atmospheric pollution and a decrease in the quality of some local water resources, including Baker Lake. Baker Lake, a hydropower reservoir behind Upper Baker Dam, supports a valuable fishery resource and also is used for recreation. The lake's feedwater is from Baker River and many smaller streams, some of which, like Boulder Creek, drain parts of Mount Baker. Boulder Creek receives water from Sherman Crater, and its channel is a likely route for avalanches or mudflows that might originate in the crater area. Boulder Creek drains only about 5 percent of the total drainage area of Baker Lake, but during 1975 carried sizeable but variable loads of acid and dissolved minerals into the lake. Sulfurous gases and the fumarole dust from Sherman Crater are the main sources for these materials, which are brought into upper Boulder Creek by meltwater from the crater. In September 1973, before the increased volcanic activity, Boulder Creek near the lake had a pH of 6.0-6.6; after the increase the pH ranged as low as about 3.5. Most nearby streams had pH values near 7. On April 29, in Boulder Creek the dissolved sulfate concentration was 6 to 29 times greater than in nearby creeks or in Baker River; total iron was 18-53 times greater than in nearby creeks; and other major dissolved constituents generally 2 to 7 times greater than in the other streams. The short-term effects on Baker Lake of the acidic, mineral-rich inflow depend mainly on: (1) the rate of flow and the character of Boulder Creek water at the time; (2) the relative rate of inflow of the feedwater from other streams; and (3) whether the reservoir is temperature-stratified (summer) or homothermal (winter). A distinct layer of Boulder Creek water was found in the lake in September 1975 extending at least 0.3 miles (.5 km) downreservoir. The greatest opportunity for water from Boulder Creek to persist as a layer and extend farthest before mixing with the other reservoir water is when Baker Lake is strongly stratified and Boulder Creek flow rate is large in relation to other feedwater. Baker Lake probably could assimilate indefinitely the acid loads measured during 1975, by dilution, chemical neutralization, and buffering of the acid-rich Boulder creek water. Minor elements found in Boulder Creek water included arsenic, selenium, and mercury; however, none of these would reach the limits recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for public water supplies unless their concentrations increased to several times the amounts found during this study. Under the prevailing conditions, acid-rich Boulder Creek water apparently cannot accumulate as a pool, or persist as a layer long enough to reach Upper Baker Dam and attack the concrete. However, even if the acid load from Boulder Creek does not greatly increase, occasional light fish mortalities may result near the mouth of the creek. Greater acid and mineral loads, resulting from further increases in volcanic activity or other possible causes, could be more harmful, especially to the fish. Continued monitoring of Boulder Creek flow and water quality is needed to rapidly any changes in conditions at Sherman Crater, and to provide warning of possible greater impacts on Baker Lake from any future increases in Mount Baker activity.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1968

Geology of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina

The boundary between Tennessee and North Carolina is delimited for about 50 miles in midlength by the crests of the Great Smoky Mountains, which include some of the highest summits in the southeastern United States, and which culminate in Clingmans Dome (alt 6,642 ft). Ramifying spurs and foothills descend northwestward from the State line divide toward the Appalachian Valley in Tennessee, as well as southeastward toward the less regularly disposed mountains of the main part of the Blue Ridge in North Carolina. All the Great Smoky Mountains are heavily forested, the higher summits being covered by spruce and fir, and the lower slopes, by a great variety of hardwoods. Much of this forested mountain wilderness has been set aside for public benefit and enjoyment as Great Smoky Mountains National Park. For most visitors to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, prime attractions are its noble forests, its open coves set gemlike amongst them, the animals of the forests and coves, and the relics of the mountaineers who have made their homes there. Only now and then, when the visitor's trail through the forest must circuit a rough ledge of rock, can he realize that the forest and the soil on which it grows are a mere veneer—a thin cover over the ancient rocks of the mountains. In the Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and most of our other national parks in the West, the situation is very different; there, the impact of the bedrock of the parks is overwhelming in relation to the plants and animals that live on the bedrock. The terrain of the Great Smoky Mountains, their soils, unconsolidated deposits, and details of slope sculpture tell a geologic story of the last few million years of earth history, a story dominated by the drastic fluctuations of the ice-age climate. Although the mountains themselves were not covered with glacial ice, the climate at this latitude approached glacial conditions, and the mountaintops were occasionally above tree line. Deposits of debris that resulted from the associated accelerated erosion of the hillsides during glacial intervals and the deeply weathered soils produced during the episodes of warm and humid interglacial climate are evident at many places. These climatic oscillations also controlled the flora and fauna. The complex process of adjustment of plants and animals to the prevailing climate is one of the factors that has produced their present great diversity. This latest phase of the geologic history is not further treated in this publication. Maps showing the younger deposits and interpretations based on them are included in the several recent U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers referred to below. Our concern in this text and its accompanying map (pl. 1) is with the bedrock geology of the Great Smoky Mountains and their surroundings, and with the story of far earlier times in earth history—when there were no Great Smoky Mountains, and when the geography and the landscape were very different from those today. Because of the forest cover and the scantiness of rock outcrops, the bedrock geology of the Great Smoky Mountains is not easy to decipher, and this difficulty is compounded by the enigmatic nature of most of the rocks themselves. It thus has come about that knowledge of the geology of the mountains has lagged behind that in surrounding regions. Following pioneer investigations of Safford (1869) and of Keith (1895, 1896), little further geologic study of the mountains was made until after World War II. The present text and map summarize the results of the more recent investigations, details of which are given at much greater length in a set of U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers (Hamilton, 1961; Hadley and Goldsmith, 1963; King, 1964; Neuman and Nelson, 1965).

North Carolina, Tennessee↗

USGS1987

Water-resources report prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, Texas District, 1973-1986

Since 1973, personnel of the Texas District, Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey have written and published approximately 300 reports concerning the water resources of Texas. These reports vary considerably in subject matter, complexity, format, desired audience, and publication outlet. Some of the reports have been published in different outlets of U.S. Geological Survey formal report series Professional Paper, Water-Supply Paper, and Hydrologic Investigations Atlas and informal report series Water-Resources Investigations, Open-File, and Water-Data Reports. Some have been published by cooperating agencies (hereinafter called "Cooperator-Published Reports") in their prescribed report series; occasionally, some reports are published both in a U.S. Geological Survey series and a cooperating agency series. This compilation lists reports prepared and published by the Texas District during 1973 through 1986 and is a continuation of a previous report, WRIR 20-75, which listed reports released and published during 1887-1974 (Friebele, 1975). Also included in this compilation are some reports published in 1973 and 1974 and a complete listing of Edwards Underground Water District bulletins and reports which were omitted from WRIR 20-75.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Quality assurance and quality control of geochemical data—A primer for the research scientist

Geochemistry is a constantly expanding science. More and more, scientists are employing geochemical tools to help answer questions about the Earth and earth system processes. Scientists may assume that the responsibility of examining and assessing the quality of the geochemical data they generate is not theirs but rather that of the analytical laboratories to which their samples have been submitted. This assumption may be partially based on knowledge about internal and external quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) programs in which analytical laboratories typically participate. Or there may be a perceived lack of time or resources to adequately examine data quality. Regardless of the reason, the lack of QA/QC protocols can lead to the generation and publication of erroneous data. Because the interpretations drawn from the data are primary products to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stakeholders, the consequences of publishing erroneous results can be significant. The principal investigator of a scientific study ultimately is responsible for the quality and interpretation of the project's findings, and thus must also play a role in the understanding, implementation, and presentation of QA/QC information about the data. Although occasionally ignored, QA/QC protocols apply not only to procedures in the laboratory but also in the initial planning of a research study and throughout the life of the project. Many of the tenets of developing a sound QA/QC program or protocols also parallel the core concepts of developing a good study: What is the main objective of the study? Will the methods selected provide data of enough resolution to answer the hypothesis? How should samples be collected? Are there known or unknown artifacts or contamination sources in the sampling and analysis methods? Assessing data quality requires communication between the scientists responsible for designing the study and those collecting samples, analyzing samples, treating data, and interpreting results. This primer has been developed to provide basic information and guidance about developing QA/QC protocols for geochemical studies. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide but rather an introduction to key concepts tied to a list of relevant references for further reading. The guidelines are presented in stepwise order beginning with presampling considerations and continuing through final data interpretation. The goal of this primer is to outline basic QA/QC practices that scientists can use before, during, and after chemical analysis to ensure the validity of the data they collect with the goal of providing defendable results and conclusions.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

Summary of Creepmeter Data from 1980 to 2020—Measurements Spanning the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas Faults in Northern and Central California

This report is an update to the presentation by Schulz (1989) introducing potential users to the creepmeter data collected between the publication of Schulz’s report and mid-2020. The creepmeter network monitors aseismic, surface slip at various locations on the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas Faults in northern and central California. There are different designs of creepmeters and these are briefly described. For a majority of the creepmeters, these data are automatically sent to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) offices where they are stored and processed. In addition, for most of the creepmeters, occasional manual measurements are made and these are compared with digitally recorded data. For some sites, the comparisons indicated degradation of the electronic sensor and consequently corrections are made to the digital data. The largest transient deformation is that which followed the 2004, M6 , Parkfield earthquake. Various functions found in the literature that have been used to model postseismic slip were tested with the observed postseismic behavior seen on the creepmeters in the vicinity of Parkfield, California. No single function adequately fit all the data from these Parkfield instruments. This report is a discussion and analysis of data from creepmeters deployed by the USGS. The discussion primarily focuses on instruments that are currently operating in 2020 or have operated quite recently but are no longer in service.

California↗

USGS1949

Ground-water supplies of the Ypsilanti area, Michigan

As of the date of this report (August 1945), the major water users in the Ypsilanti area are: (1) the city of Ypsilanti, (2) the Willow Run bomber plant, built by the Federal Government and operated by the Ford Motor Co., and (3) the war housing project of the Federal Public Housing Authority, designated in this report the Willow Run Townsite. The city, bomber plant, and townsite have required large quantities of water for domestic and industrial uses, and the necessary water supplies have been developed from wells. The Federal Works Agency had the responsibility of deciding whether the existing water facilities were adequate to meet the expected demands and determining the character of any additional public water-supply facilities that might be constructed with Federal assistance. In order to appraise the ground-water resources of the area the Federal Works Agency requested the Geological Survey to investigate the adequacy of the existing supplies and the availability of additional water. The present report is the result of the investigation, which was made in cooperation with the Michigan Geological Survey Division. The water supplies of the three major users are obtained from wells penetrating glacial and associated sands and gravels. Supplies for the city of Ypsilanti and the Willow Run bomber plant are obtained from wells in the valley of the Huron River; the supply for the Willow Run Townsite is obtained from wells penetrating glacial gravels underlying the upland northeast of the valley. The bedrock formations of the area either yield little water to wells or yield water that is too highly mineralized for most uses. The water supply for the bomber plant is obtained from three closely spaced, highly productive wells at the northern edge of the Huron River, a little more than 3 miles southeast of Ypsilanti. The water receives complete treatment in a modern treatment plant. River water also can be treated and has been used occasionally in the winter and spring. The average daily pumpage during periods of maximum production at the bomber plant has been 4.5 to 4.75 million gallons. On June 30, 1945, production of bombers was suspended, and the plant went on a. maintenance basis. The water supply of the bomber-plant well field is replenished by recharge from precipitation and from the Huron River. The evidence shows that recharge from the river is one of the principal sources of water and gives assurance both of the adequacy of the present supply and of the availability of additional water if needed. The safe yield of the three existing wells is estimated to be not less than 6 million gallons per day. The Ypsilanti public water supply is obtained from three tubular wells drilled in 1943, which replaced a number of suction-pumped tubular wells and one large dug well. All the wells penetrate sand and gravel in the bend of the Huron River in the southeastern part of Ypsilanti. The water is treated in a modern treatment plant completed in 1939. The average daily pumpage in million gallons was about 1.68 in 1942, 1.70 in 1943, and 1.66 in 1944. Considerable water was furnished to the Willow Run bomber plant from the Ypsilanti public-supply system during the period from August 1941 through March 1943. The available information indicates that the water pumped from the Ypsilanti well field is replenished by ground-water flow from adjacent stretches of the Huron Valley and from the upland areas outside the valley, from precipitation on the valley in the vicinity of the well field, and possibly from the Huron River. It is believed that sufficient water can be obtained from the well field to meet the expected demand for a considerable time. The safe yield of the present wells is estimated to be not less than 3 million gallons per day, and detailed pumping tests might show that still larger supplies could be safely developed. The water supply of the Willow Run Townsite is obtained from four wells in two well fields about 2 miles apart, one well in the northwest or Prospect and Geddes Road field, and three wells in the southeast or Wiard Road field. The pumpage was originally expected to be 2 to 3 million gallons per day, but it averaged only about 450,000 gallons per day from March 1943 through June 1945. The evidence afforded by logs of wells and by pumping tests indicates that the water-bearing gravels at the townsite are covered by relatively impermeable materials and thus that the rate of recharge is low. However, only relatively small declines in water level have occurred during more than 2 years' operation of the wells, indicating that recharge may occur nearby. The safe yield of the present wells is estimated to be 1.0 to 1.5 million gallons per day, and detailed pumping tests might show it to be somewhat greater. The water supply of the Willow Run Townsite has the smallest potential capacity of the three major ground-water supplies in the area; however, the demand has been relatively small, and no difficulty should arise unless this demand increases greatly. The investigation involved the drilling of 13 test wells to locate additional ground-water supplies, on the assumption that the wartime demand for water in the Ypsilanti area might increase beyond the capacity of the present sources. All 13 wells were drilled at sites selected by the Geological Survey. Two wells on the Willow Run Townsite were drilled by the Federal Public Housing Authority and 11 at other sites by the Federal Works Agency. Records of the wells are given in the report and discussed with respect to the availability of water at the different sites; similarly, the results of the controlled pumping tests made on four of the test wells drilled by the Federal Works Agency are analyzed and discussed with respect to the availability of additional water. The combined results of the test drilling and the pumping tests show that emergency supplies of several million gallons per day can be developed at the sites of the test wells. The best site shown by the test drilling is on the south bank of the Huron River opposite the bomber-plant well field, where a Well with a capacity of several thousand gallons per minute could be constructed if necessary. Three wells in the outwash-filled valley now occupied by Fleming Creek, on two of which pumping tests were made, show that emergency supplies ranging from a few hundred thousand to a million gallons per day could be developed at these test-well sites if necessary. Smaller Supplies ranging from a gallon or two per minute to perhaps 100,000 or 200,000 gallons per day could be developed at the sites of the remaining test Wells. Pumping tests made on the supply wells of the three major water users by the consulting-engineering firms who designed the systems are analyzed and discussed briefly by the authors. The report includes maps and graphs showing the surficial geology of the area, the location of wells, and fluctuations of water level in selected wells. Alsp included are tables giving data on water levels and pumpage, chemical analyses of representative ground waters, and records of wells.

Michigan↗

USGS2014

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources, 2014-15

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. Although rainfall in normal years can support these activities and needs, occasional floods and droughts can disrupt streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie; it has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds. Nearly all the rural population obtain drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decision makers, policy makers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of the use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2014) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/ .

Ohio↗

USGS2016

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources, 2016-17

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. Although rainfall in normal years can support these activities and needs, occasional floods and droughts can disrupt streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie; it has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds (State of Ohio, 1994). Nearly all of the rural population obtains drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decisionmakers, policy makers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of the use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2016) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/ .

Ohio↗

USGS1968

Water resources inventory of Connecticut Part 3: lower Thames and southeastern coastal river basins

The lower Thames and southeastern coastal river basins have a relatively abundant supply of water of generally good quality which is derived from streams entering the area and precipitation that has fallen on the area. Annual precipitation has ranged from about 32 inches to 65 inches and has averaged about 48 inches over a 30-year period. Approximately 22 inches of water are returned to the atmosphere each year by evaporation and transpiration; the remainder of the annual precipitation either flows overland to streams or percolates downward to the water table and ultimately flows out of the report area through estuaries and coastal streams or as underflow through the deposits beneath. During the autumn and winter months precipitation normally is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the amount of water stored underground and in surface reservoirs within the report area, whereas in the summer most of the precipitation is lost through evaporation and transpiration, resulting in sharply reduced stream-flow and lowered ground-water levels. The mean monthly storage of water on an average is about 3.8 inches higher in November than it is in June. The amount of water that flows through and out of the report area represents the total amount of water potentially available for use by man. For the 30-year period 1931 through 1960, the annual runoff from the report area has averaged nearly 26 inches (200 billion gallons), from the entire Thames River basin above Norwich about 24 inches (530 billion gallons), and from the Pawcatuck River basin about 26 inches (130 billion gallons). A total average annual runoff of 860 billion gallons is therefore available. Although runoff indicates the total amount of water potentially available, it is usually not economically feasible for man to use all of it. On the other hand, with increased development, it is possible that some water will be reused several times. The water available may be tapped as it flows through the area or is temporarily stored in streams, lakes, and aquifers. The amounts that can be developed vary from place to place and time to time, depending on the amount of precipitation, on the size of drainage area, on the thickness, permeability, and areal extent of aquifers, and on the variations in chemical and physical quality of the water. Differences in streamflow from point to point are due primarily to differences in the proportion of stratified drift in the drainage basin above each point, which affect the timing of streamflow, and to differences in precipitation, which affect the amount of streamflow. Ground water can be obtained from wells almost anywhere in the area, but the amount obtainable at any particular point depends upon the type and water-bearing properties of the aquifers. For practical purposes, the earth materials in the report area comprise three aquifers--stratified drift, bedrock, and till. Stratified drift is the only aquifer generally capable of yielding more than 100 gpm (gallons per minute) to individual wells. It covers about 20 percent of the area and occurs chiefly in lowlands where it overlies till and bedrock. The coefficient of permeability of the coarse-grained unit of stratified drift averages about 1,500 gbd (gallons per day) per sq ft. Drilled, screened wells tapping this unit are known to yield from 4 to 88o gpm and average 146 gpm. Dug wells in coarse-grained stratified drift supply about 2 gpm per foot of drawdown over a period of a few hours. Fine-grained stratified drift has an average coefficient of permeability of about 300 gpd per sq ft and can usually yield supplies sufficient for household use to dug wells. Bedrock and till are widespread in extent but generally provide only small water supplies. Bedrock is tapped chiefly by drilled wells, about 90 percent of which will supply at least 3 gpm. Very few, however, will supply more than 50 gpm. Till is tapped in a few places by dug wells which can yield small supplies of only a few hundred gpd throughout all or most of the year. The coefficient of permeability of till ranges from about 0.2 gpd per sq ft to 120 gpd per sq ft. The amount of ground water potentially available in the report area depends upon the amount of ground-water outflow, the amount of ground water in storage, and the quantity of water available by induced infiltration from streams and lakes. From data on permeability, saturated thickness, recharge, yield from aquifer storage, well performance, and streamflow, preliminary estimates of ground-water availability can be made for any point in the report area. Long-term yields estimated for 18 areas of stratified drift especially favorable for development of large ground-water supplies ranged from 1.3 to 66 mgd. Detailed site studies to determine optimum yields, drawdowns, and spacing of individual wells are needed before major ground-water development is undertaken in these or other areas. The chemical quality of water in the report area is generally good to excellent. Samples of naturally occurring surface water collected at 24 sites contained less than 151 ppm (parts per million) of dissolved solids and less than 63 ppm of hardness. Water from wells is more highly mineralized than naturally occurring water from streams. Even so only 12 percent of the wells sampled yielded water with more than 200 ppm of dissolved solids and only 8 percent yielded water with more than 120 ppm of hardness. Even in major streams, which are used to transport industrial waste, hardness rarely exceeds 60 ppm and the dissolved mineral content is generally less than 200 ppm. At a few places in the town of Montville however, waters may contain dissolved mineral concentrations of 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. Iron and manganese in both ground water and surface water are the only constituents whose concentrations commonly exceed recommended limits for domestic and industrial use. Most wells in the report area yield clear water with little or no iron or manganese, but distributed among them are wells yielding ground water that contains enough of these dissolved constituents to be troublesome for most uses. Iron concentrations in naturally occurring stream water exceed 0.3 ppm under low-flow conditions at 33 percent of the sites sampled. Large concentrations of iron in stream water result from discharge of iron-bearing water from aquifers or from swamps where it is released largely from decaying vegetation. Ground water more than 30 feet below the land surface has a relatively constant temperature, usually between 48°F and 52°F. Water temperature in very shallow wells may fluctuate from about 38°F in February or March to about 55°F in late summer. Water temperature in the larger streams fluctuates much more widely, ranging from 32°F at least for brief periods in winter, to about 85°F occasionally during summer. The quality of suspended sediment transported by streams in the area is negligible. Turbidity in streams is generally not a problem although amounts large enough to be troublesome may occur locally at times. The total amount of water used in the report area for all purposes during 1964 was about 118,260 million gallons, of which 105,600 million gallons was estuarine water used for cooling by industry. The average per capita water use, excluding estuarine, temporary summer residence, and institutional water was equivalent to 186 gpd. Public water systems supplied the domestic needs of nearly tw0-thirds the population of the report area. All of the 19 systems, which were sampled, provided water of better quality than the U.S. Public Health Service suggests for drinking water standards.

Connecticut↗

USGS1964

Water resources of the Green Bay area, Wisconsin

The Green Bay area comprises an area of about 525 square miles in eastern Wisconsin at the south end of Green Bay. It includes the western three-fourths of Brown County and the eastern one-ninth of Outagamie County. In 1960, the population of the area was estimated at 124,000. The most prominent topographic feature is the northwest-facing, southwestward trending Niagara escarpment. The area northwest of the escarpment drains into Green Bay via the Fox River, Suamico River, Duck Creek, and their tributaries. The area southeast of the escarpment is drained by streams that flow into Lake Michigan. The chief sources of surface water in the Green Bay area are the Fox River, Green Bay, and Lake Michigan. Smaller amounts of water are available from the East and Suamico Rivers and other streams. A sandstone aquifer is the principal source of the ground-water supply. The Niagara dolomite, although largely undeveloped, is potentially an important aquifer in the eastern part of the area. Small amounts of water are obtained also from the Platteville formation and from deposits of Pleistocene and Recent age. Water from the surfaceand ground-water sources is moderately hard to very hard. The Fox River, tributary to Lake Michigan at Green Bay, is a significant source of water for industrial use in the Green Bay area. The Menasha Dam, which controls release of water from the Lake Winnebago pool, is the major regulation on the Fox River, and it has considerable effect in reducing peak flows and supplementing low flows in the lower Fox River. The average discharge of the lower Fox River for the period 1898-1959, as measured at the gaging station at Rapide Croche Dam, was 2,687 mgd (million gallons per day). The longest consecutive period during which the discharge averaged less than 500 mgd was 80 days. The average discharge can be expected to fall below 700 mgd about once every 5 years for a 7-day period. In 1959, the average withdrawal of water from the Fox River was about 62 mgd. The water in the river is of the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type and is hard. The small streams in the area are utilized chiefly for stock watering; some of the water, however, is used for irrigation. The water in the small streams is more highly mineralized than the water in the Fox River and is very hard. Large quantities of water are available from Green Bay, but the disposal of industrial waste into the bay has restricted the use of the water. The major withdrawal is for condenser cooling, and, in 1959, it averaged about 415 mgd. The water from Green Bay is moderately hard but is of better chemical quality than the water from the Fox River and the small streams in the area. The only withdrawals of water from Lake Michigan for use in the Green Bay area are made by the city of Green Bay. In 1959, these withdrawals averaged 7.8 mgd. The lower Fox River is not subject to extremes of flow owing to the dampening effect of the Lake Winnebago pool and the regulation of flow at Menasha Dam. Cloudbursts over the lower Fox River valley below Menasha Dam, however, have occasionally caused extremely high water, as in 1922, when the discharge at the mouth of the Fox River was estimated to be about 50,000 mgd. Daily discharges greater than about 13,000 mgd occurred only 7 times in the period 1918-59. The 50-year flood of 15,500 mgd represents an average runoff of less than 2.6 mgd per square mile of drainage area, a relatively low runoff for a 50-year flood in Wisconsin. The sandstone aquifer is the principal source of ground water in the Green Bay area and furnishes water for public supply and industrial use. This aquifer includes rocks of Late Cambrian age, and the Prairie du Chien group and St. Peter sandstone of Ordovician age; it ranges in thickness from 550 to 640 feet. Ground water is found in openings along fractures and bedding planes and in the interstices between sand grains. The sandstone aquifer can support additional development of large supplies of ground water. Wells can be developed in most of the area that will yield 500 gpm (gallons per minute) or more, provided they are properly spaced and penetrate the entire thickness of the aquifer. It is estimated that the perennial yield of the sandstone in the Green Bay area could be at least 30 mgd if the aquifer is properly developed; only 5.4 mgd was withdrawn in 1959. The water from this sandstone aquifer is of the calcium magnesium bicarbonate type, is very hard, and, at a few places, contains objectionable amounts of iron. The Niagara dolomite, potentially a source of moderate to large quantities of water in the eastern part of the area, probably will yield 500 gpm or more to wells. In 1959, the average withdrawal of water for all uses was estimated at 495 mgd, of which 98.2 percent was from surface-water sources and 1.8 percent was from wells. About 485 mgd of water was withdrawn for industrial use, 6 mgd for public supply, and 4 mgd for rural use. The industrial use of water averaged 441 mgd for condenser cooling, 38 mgd fot processing by the paper industry, and 6 mgd for other industrial uses. The city of Green Bay used 7.8 mgd of water from Lake Michigan; other public supplies in the area used 2.6 mgd from wells. Of the withdrawals of water for rural use, about 75 percent was from wells and about 25 percent was from streams. The discharge of wastes into the lower Fox River and its tributary streams has altered the quality of the natural water. The wastes consist chiefly of treated municipal sewage and treated and untreated wastes from the paper industry, rendering plants, a sugar mill, and other industries. The industrial waste makes up about 90 percent of the oxygen-demand loading in the lower Fox River, and treated municipal sewage accounts for about 10 percent. The dissolved-oxygen concentration of water in the lower Fox River decreases rapidly in the vicinity of Green Bay during the summer when the river water is warm. If the periods when the river water is warmest, generally during July and early August, were to coincide with periods of lowest annual streamflow, generally in late August, the river would be unable to assimilate the loading of decomposable organic matter. In an emergency, industrial and public supply wells could supply at least 6 mgd for a sustained period and probably as much as 10 mgd for a period of several days. Six of the wells that formerly supplied the city of Green Bay are maintained in operating condition and could furnish about the same quantity of water as the industrial and other public supply wells. Small streams in the area would be supplemental sources of water, and the water in the Fox River and Green Bay is easily accessible.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2006

Water-resources data for the United States: water year 2006

Water resources data are published annually for use by engineers, scientists, managers, educators, and the general public. These archival products supplement direct access to current and historical water data provided by NWISWeb. Beginning with Water Year 2006, annual water data reports are available as individual electronic Site Data Sheets for the entire Nation for retrieval, download, and localized printing on demand. National distribution includes tabular and map interfaces for search, query, display and download of data. From 1962 until 2005, reports were published by State as paper documents, although most reports since the mid-1990s are also available in electronic form through this web page. Reports prior to 1962 were published in occasional USGS Water-Supply Papers and other reports.

Water Data Report↗

USGS2007

Water-resources data for the United States: water year 2007

Water Data Report↗

USGS2009

Water-resources data for the United States: Water year 2009

Water Data Report↗

USGS2010

Water-resources data for the United States: Water year 2010

Water Data Report↗

USGS2012

Water-resources data for the United States: water year 2012

Water Data Report↗

USGS2006

Ecology and habitat of breeding Northern Goshawks in the inland Pacific Northwest: A summary of research in the 1990s

During the 1990s, we conducted research on the distribution, productivity, and habitat relationships of Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in eastern Oregon and Washington. Our research was initiated primarily in response to concerns raised about the status of Northern Goshawks in the western US, and coincided with early attempts to list the species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and the publication of management guidelines for goshawks in the southwestern US. To develop baseline information on the status, distribution, and habitat relationships of goshawks in eastside forests (i.e., east of the Cascade Mountain Range) in the Pacific Northwest, we established study areas on three national forests in eastern Oregon in 1992, adding a fourth study area in central Washington in 1994. We focused on the breeding season and nesting habitat because of its primary importance to goshawk ecology and the logistical feasibility of finding nests. Density of breeding pairs ranged from 0.03-0.09/100 ha, and annual productivity ranged from 0.3-2.2 young fledged/nest. Goshawks selected forest stands with trees of larger diameter and greater canopy closure for nesting than available in the landscape. Occasionally nests could be found in large trees in open-canopied stands. As distance increased from the nest site, forest type and structure became more heterogeneous and the prevalence of older-seral-stage forest declined. Dry or wet openings were present in most territories, often within close proximity to nest stands. Goshawks ate a variety of mammalian and avian prey. Mammal species made up a larger portion of prey biomass on two of the national forests, but avian species appeared to be more prevalent in the diet of goshawks in the most northern study area. We recommend that the existing management guidelines for goshawks in the Southwest form a basis for management in the inland Pacific Northwest, particularly with regard to nested spatial concepts, emphasis on management of prey, and the use of silviculture to promote the development and replacement of old growth or late-seral-stage forest. Our research and management recommendations can be used in concert with the Southwestern management guidelines to establish a mix of vegetation structural stages to support goshawk populations, their prey, and other forest wildlife species specifically for the inland Pacific Northwest.

Studies in Avian Biology↗