USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Map Series”

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

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

At least 1,369 records · Page 76Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Oblique Aerial Photography of the Arctic Coast of Alaska, Cape Sabine to Milne Point, July 16-19, 2009

The Arctic Coastal Plain of northern Alaska, an area of strategic economic importance to the United States, is home to remote Native American communities and encompasses unique habitats of global significance. Coastal erosion along the Arctic coast is chronic and widespread; recent evidence suggests that erosion rates are among the highest in the world (as high as ~16 m/yr) and may be accelerating. Coastal erosion adversely impacts energy-related infrastructure, natural shoreline habitats, and Native American communities. Climate change is thought to be a key component of recent environmental changes in the Arctic. Reduced sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is one of the probable mechanisms responsible for increasing coastal exposure to wave attack and the resulting increase in erosion. Extended periods of permafrost melting and associated decreases in bluff cohesion and stability are another possible source of the increase in erosion. Several studies of selected areas on the Alaska coast document past shoreline positions and coastal change, but none have examined the entire North coast systematically. Results from these studies indicate high rates of coastal retreat that vary spatially along the coast. To address the need for a comprehensive and regionally consistent evaluation of shoreline change along the North coast of Alaska, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as part of their Coastal and Marine Geology Program's (CMGP) National Assessment of Shoreline Change Study, is evaluating shoreline change from Peard Bay to the United States/Canadian border, using historical maps and photography and a standardized methodology that is consistent with other shoreline-change studies along the Nation's coastlines (see, for example, http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/shoreline-change/, last accessed February 12, 2010). This is the second in a series of publications containing photographs collected during reconnaissance surveys conducted in support of the National Assessment of Shoreline Change Study. An accompanying ESRI ArcGIS shape file (and plaintext copy) indicates the position of the aircraft and time when each photograph was taken. The USGS-CMGP Field Activity ID for the survey is A-5-09-AK, and more information on the survey and how to view the photographs using Google Earth software is available online at http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/a/a509ak/html/a-5-09-ak.photos.kmz (last accessed February 12, 2010). The initial report ?Oblique aerial photography of the Arctic coast of Alaska, Nulavik to Demarcation Point, August 7-10, 2006? is available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/436/, and the associated Google Earth .kmz file is available at http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/a/a106ak/html/a-1-06-ak.photos.kmz (last accessed February 12, 2010).

Data Series↗
USGS2011

PQLX: A seismic data quality control system description, applications, and users manual

We present a detailed description and users manual for a new tool to evaluate seismic station performance and characteristics by providing quick and easy transitions between visualizations of the frequency and time domains. The software is based on the probability density functions (PDF) of power spectral densities (PSD) (McNamara and Buland, 2004) and builds on the original development of the PDF stand-alone software system (McNamara and Boaz, 2005) and the seismological data viewer application PQL (IRIS-PASSCAL Quick Look) and PQLII (available through the IRIS PASSCAL program: http://www.passcal.nmt.edu/content/pql-ii-program-viewing-data). With PQLX (PQL eXtended), computed PSDs are stored in a MySQL database, allowing a user to access specific time periods of PSDs (PDF subsets) and time series segments through a GUI-driven interface. The power of the method and software lies in the fact that there is no need to screen the data for system transients, earthquakes, or general data artifacts, because they map into a background probability level. In fact, examination of artifacts related to station operation and episodic cultural noise allow us to estimate both the overall station quality and a baseline level of Earth noise at each site. The output of this analysis tool is useful for both operational and scientific applications. Operationally, it is useful for characterizing the current and past performance of existing broadband stations, for conducting tests on potential new seismic station locations, for evaluating station baseline noise levels (McNamara and others, 2009), for detecting problems with the recording system or sensors, and for evaluating the overall quality of data and metadata. Scientifically, the tool allows for mining of PSDs for investigations on the evolution of seismic noise (for example, Aster and others, 2008; and Aster and others, 2010) and other phenomena. Currently, PQLX is operational at several organizations including the USGS National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), the USGS Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL), and the Incorporated Research Institutions in Seismology (IRIS) Data Management Center (DMC) for station monitoring and instrument response quality control. The PQLX system is available to the community at large through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (http://ehpm-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/research/software/pqlx.php) and IRIS (http://www.iris.edu/software/pqlx). Also provided is a fully searchable website for bug reporting and enhancement requests (http://wush.net/bugzilla/PQLX). The first part of this document aims to describe and illustrate some of the features and capabilities of the software. The second part of this document is a detailed users manual that covers installation procedures, system requirements, operations, bug reporting, and software components (Appendix).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Understanding and documenting the scientific basis of selenium ecological protection in support of site-specific guidelines development for Lake Koocanusa, Montana, U.S.A., and British Columbia, Canada

Modeling of ecosystems is a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s protocol for developing site-specific selenium guidelines for protection of aquatic life. Selenium as an environmental contaminant is known to bioaccumulate and cause reproductive effects in fish and wildlife. Here we apply a modeling methodology—ecosystem-scale selenium modeling—to understand and document the scientific basis for predicting and validating ecological protection for Lake Koocanusa, a transboundary reservoir between Montana and British Columbia. A comprehensive set of site-specific data compiled from public databases (Federal, State, and Provincial) and reports by Teck Coal Ltd., is available in a companion U.S. Geological Survey data release. The tissue guideline used within modeling here to assess protection is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s national selenium guideline for whole-body fish (dry weight); however, other numeric values for a whole-body guideline or other tissue types may be assumed if applicable tissue-to-tissue conversion factors are available. We consider the report assembled here as a working document that presents a model that can effectively address and structure the needs of (1) scientific understanding in representing the lake’s ecosystem and selenium biodynamics and (2) policy and management development during a decision-making process, but it is open to modification and updating as more ecologically detailed data become available. The approach brings together the main concerns involved in selenium toxicity: likelihood of high exposure, inherent species sensitivity, and close connectivity of ecosystem characteristics and behavioral ecology of predators. Detailed site-specific modeling equations are provided to document the linked factors that determine the responses of ecosystems to selenium. A series of scenarios quantifies the implications of choices of site-specific variables including food-web species, bioavailability of particulate material, and partitioning between the dissolved and particulate phases at the base of food webs. A gradient mapping tool applied to Lake Koocanusa provides a precedent for ecosystem-scale modeling of lakes by recognizing the importance of lake strata and hydrodynamics as components of modeling. Data requirements for ecosystem modeling, including ecological and hydrological process information fundamental to the dietary biodynamics of selenium in site-specific food webs, were assessed as a precursor to model validation for Lake Koocanusa. Understanding these relationships is necessary to connect modeling outcomes to reproductive effects and establish boundaries, in the case of Lake Koocanusa, for the influences of dam operation, fish-community viability, and its Clean Water Act impaired 303(d)-listing status on ecosystem function. We find that an assemblage of conditions affects the representation of Lake Koocanusa’s ecosystem within modeling scenarios but that the constructed gradient maps, mechanistic model, and associated bioaccumulation potentials portray and quantify the variables that are determinative to protection of predator species. Ecological and hydrological sorting of compiled individual data points on a site- and species-specific basis helps identify and address model uncertainties. Sources of uncertainty include (1) the scarcity of data for some environmental media compartments across time and locations, (2) the complexity of hydrodynamic conditions that can lead to seasonal ecological disconnects such as in selenium partitioning from water into particulates, and (3) the functional status of Lake Koocanusa’s ecosystem because of cumulative effects of various environmental stresses (for example, fish-community changes, flow regime changes, parasites, gonadal dysfunction, and increasing mining input-selenium concentrations since 1984). To this last point, it is important to determine where Lake Koocanusa is in an impairment-restoration cycle so as not to base protection on survivor bias, the maintenance of a currently degraded ecosystem, or normalized toxicity. In a broader context, one of the overall consequences of revised selenium regulations is that their derivation is now dependent on being able to define and understand the status of the ecosystem on which protection is based.

Montana, British Columbia↗
USGS2018

Status of groundwater-level altitudes and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas, 2018

Since the early 1900s, most of the groundwater withdrawals in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas, have been from the three primary aquifers that compose the Gulf Coast aquifer system—the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. Withdrawals from these aquifers are used for municipal supply, industrial, and irrigation purposes. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, City of Houston, Fort Bend Subsidence District, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, and Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports depicting the status of groundwater-level altitudes and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region. This report contains regional-scale maps depicting approximate 2018 groundwater-level altitudes (represented by measurements made during December 2017 through March 2018) and long-term groundwater-level changes for the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. In 2018, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Chicot aquifer ranged from 200 feet (ft) below the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “datum”) to 200 ft above datum. The 1977–2018 groundwater-level-change contours for the Chicot aquifer depict a large area of decline in groundwater-level altitudes (120 ft) in northwestern Harris County. The largest rise in groundwater-level altitudes in the Chicot aquifer from 1977 to 2018 (180 ft) was in southeastern Harris County. Groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Evangeline aquifer ranged from 250 ft below datum to 200 ft above datum in 2018. The 1977–2018 groundwater-level-change contours for the Evangeline aquifer depict broad areas where groundwater-level altitudes either declined or rose. The largest decline in groundwater-level altitudes (320 ft) was in southern Montgomery County. The largest rise in groundwater-level altitudes in the Evangeline aquifer from 1977 to 2018 (240 ft) was in southeastern Harris County. In 2018, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Jasper aquifer ranged from 200 ft below datum to 200 ft above datum. The 2000–18 groundwater-level-change contours for the Jasper aquifer depict groundwater-level declines throughout most of the study area where groundwater-level-altitude data from the Jasper aquifer were collected, with the largest decline (200 ft) in southern Montgomery County.

Texas↗
USGS2019

Status of groundwater-level altitudes and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas, 2019

Since the early 1900s, most of the groundwater withdrawals in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas, have been from the three primary aquifers that compose the Gulf Coast aquifer system—the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. Withdrawals from these aquifers are used for municipal supply, commercial and industrial use, and irrigation. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, City of Houston, Fort Bend Subsidence District, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, and Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports depicting the status of groundwater-level altitudes and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region. This report contains regional-scale maps depicting approximate 2019 groundwater-level altitudes (represented by measurements made during December 2018 through March 2019) and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. In 2019, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Chicot aquifer ranged from 200 feet (ft) below the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “datum”) to 200 ft above datum. The 1977–2019 groundwater-level-change contours for the Chicot aquifer depict a large area of decline in groundwater-level altitudes (100 ft) in northwestern Harris County. The largest rise in groundwater-level altitudes in the Chicot aquifer from 1977 to 2019 (200 ft) was in southeastern Harris County. In 2019, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Evangeline aquifer ranged from 300 ft below datum to 200 ft above datum. The 1977–2019 groundwater-level-change contours for the Evangeline aquifer depict broad areas where groundwater-level altitudes either declined or rose. The largest decline in groundwater-level altitudes (280 ft) was in southern Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. The largest rise in groundwater-level altitudes in the Evangeline aquifer from 1977 to 2019 (240 ft) was in southeastern Harris County. In 2019, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Jasper aquifer ranged from 200 ft below datum to 250 ft above datum. The 2000–19 groundwater-level-change contours for the Jasper aquifer depict groundwater-level declines throughout most of the study area where groundwater-level-altitude data from the Jasper aquifer were collected, with the largest decline (200 ft) in southern Montgomery County.

Texas↗
USGS2020

Status of groundwater-level altitudes and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas, 2020

Since the early 1900s, most of the groundwater withdrawals in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas, have been from the three primary aquifers that compose the Gulf Coast aquifer system—the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. Withdrawals from these aquifers are used for municipal supply, commercial and industrial use, and irrigation. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, City of Houston, Fort Bend Subsidence District, Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, and Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports depicting the status of groundwater-level altitudes and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region. This report contains regional-scale maps depicting approximate 2020 groundwater-level altitudes (represented by measurements made during December 2019 through March 2020) and long-term groundwater-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. In 2020, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Chicot aquifer ranged from 150 feet (ft) below the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “datum”) to 200 ft above datum. The 1977–2020 groundwater-level-change contours for the Chicot aquifer depict a large area of decline in groundwater-level altitudes (120 ft) in northwestern Harris County. The largest rise in groundwater-level altitudes in the Chicot aquifer from 1977 to 2020 (200 ft) was in southeastern Harris County. In 2020, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Evangeline aquifer ranged from 250 ft below datum to 200 ft above datum. The 1977–2020 groundwater-level-change contours for the Evangeline aquifer depict broad areas where groundwater-level altitudes either declined or rose. The largest decline in groundwater-level altitudes (280 ft) was in southern Montgomery and northern Harris Counties. The largest rise in groundwater-level altitudes in the Evangeline aquifer from 1977 to 2020 (240 ft) was in southeastern Harris County. In 2020, groundwater-level-altitude contours for the Jasper aquifer ranged from 200 ft below datum to 250 ft above datum. The 2000–20 groundwater-level-change contours for the Jasper aquifer depict groundwater-level declines throughout most of the study area where groundwater-level-altitude data from the Jasper aquifer were collected, with the largest decline (220 ft) in southern Montgomery County.

Texas↗
USGS2001

The geology and mineral deposits of part of the western half of the Hailey 1 degree x 2 degrees quadrangle, Idaho

Rocks in the western half of the Hailey 1°x2° quadrangle of south-central Idaho include various units of the Atlanta lobe of the Idaho batholith (biotite granodiorite to two-mica granite) of Cretaceous age and plutons and dikes of Tertiary (Eocene to Miocene) age that intrude the batholith. Eocene plutonic rocks consist of a bimodal suite of anorogenic granite and tonalite-granodiorite and hypabyssal rhyolite and rhyodacite dikes. Rocks of the Eocene Challis Volcanics are scarce in the map area but are widespread to the east. Rhyolite ash flows of the Miocene Idavada Volcanics and basalt of the Snake River Plain crop out in the southern part of the area. Lacustrine rocks of probable Eocene to Holocene age are present in the vicinity of Anderson Ranch Reservoir. Quaternary basalts and gravels are widespread on the South Fork of the Boise River, and alluvial deposits are common along active drainages. Metasedimentary rocks of unknown age crop out on House Mountain, Chimney Peak, and on the ridges east of Anderson Ranch Reservoir. Older structures in the Idaho batholith include a major fault beneath House Mountain that may be a decollement for one of the large thrust sheets in eastern Idaho or part of an extensional core complex. The southern part of the Atlanta lobe of the Idaho batholith is cut by northeast-striking faults (parallel with the Trans-Challis fault system) that are related to Eocene extension and by northwest-oriented faults that formed during basin and range extension in the Miocene. The basin and range faults have prominent scarps typical of basin and range topography. The combination of northeast and northwest faults has broken the batholith into a series of rhomboid blocks. Some of these northeast and northwest faults are older structures that were reactivated in the Eocene or Miocene, as indicated by Ar 40 /Ar 39 dates on mineralized rock contained in some of the structures. The Idaho batholith and associated rocks in the map area host several hundred mines and prospects in 18 mining districts. The deposits range in age from Cretaceous to Eocene, and many were developed for precious metals. Most of the deposits are in quartz veins in shear zones in granitic rocks of the batholith. Several districts were actively being explored for low-grade, bulk-minable, precious-metal deposits in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Idaho↗
USGS2002

A bibliography of terrain modeling (geomorphometry), the quantitative representation of topography: Supplement 4.0

Terrain modeling, the practice of ground-surface quantification, is an amalgam of Earth science, mathematics, engineering, and computer science. The discipline is known variously as geomorphometry (or simply morphometry), terrain analysis, and quantitative geomorphology. It continues to grow through myriad applications to hydrology, geohazards mapping, tectonics, sea-floor and planetary exploration, and other fields. Dating nominally to the co-founders of academic geography, Alexander von Humboldt (1808, 1817) and Carl Ritter (1826, 1828), the field was revolutionized late in the 20th Century by the computer manipulation of spatial arrays of terrain heights, or digital elevation models (DEMs), which can quantify and portray ground-surface form over large areas (Maune, 2001). Morphometric procedures are implemented routinely by commercial geographic information systems (GIS) as well as specialized software (Harvey and Eash, 1996; Köthe and others, 1996; ESRI, 1997; Drzewiecki et al., 1999; Dikau and Saurer, 1999; Djokic and Maidment, 2000; Wilson and Gallant, 2000; Breuer, 2001; Guth, 2001; Eastman, 2002). The new Earth Surface edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research, specializing in surficial processes, is the latest of many publication venues for terrain modeling. This is the fourth update of a bibliography and introduction to terrain modeling (Pike, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999) designed to collect the diverse, scattered literature on surface measurement as a resource for the research community. The use of DEMs in science and technology continues to accelerate and diversify (Pike, 2000a). New work appears so frequently that a sampling must suffice to represent the vast literature. This report adds 1636 entries to the 4374 in the four earlier publications1. Forty-eight additional entries correct dead Internet links and other errors found in the prior listings. Chronicling the history of terrain modeling, many entries in this report predate the 1999 supplement. Coverage is representative from about 1800 through early–mid 2002. Papers increasingly are published exclusively or in duplicate on the Internet's World Wide Web; the dates given here for Web addresses (URLs) that lack a print publication indicate a Web site's last update or my last access of it. The bibliography is arranged alphabetically and thus is not readily summarized. This introduction cites about 500 entries, a third of them grouped under 24 morphometric topics, as a guide to the listing's contents. Continuing the practice of previous bibliographies in the series to provide more information on a few applications (see summary of past topics in Pike, 2000a), this report elaborates further on topographic data, putative new parameters, tectonic geomorphology/neo-orometry, biogeography, ice-cap morphometry, results from the Mars Global DEM, landslide-hazard mapping, terrain modeling as physics, Hack's law, and broad-scale computer visualization. The literature of some of these subjects is large, and none of the summaries is intended to more than introduce the topic and comment on some of the current contributions of terrain modeling. Closing the essay is a discussion of pre-1900 papers that trace the evolution of ridge-line and watercourse quantification by descriptive geometry, as well as comments on some new books and an on-line bulletin board.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Temporal and spatial patterns of wetland extent influence variability of surface water connectivity in the Prairie Pothole Region, United States

Context. Quantifying variability in landscape-scale surface water connectivity can help improve our understanding of the multiple effects of wetlands on downstream waterways. Objectives. We examined how wetland merging and the coalescence of wetlands with streams varied both spatially (among ecoregions) and interannually (from drought to deluge) across parts of the Prairie Pothole Region. Methods. Wetland extent was derived over a time series (1990-2011) using Landsat imagery. Changes in landscape-scale connectivity, generated by the physical coalescence of wetlands with other surface water features, were quantified by fusing static wetland and stream datasets with Landsat-derived wetland extent maps, and related to multiple wetness indices. The usage of Landsat allows for decadal-scale analysis, but limits the types of surface water connections that can be detected. Results. Wetland extent correlated positively with the merging of wetlands and wetlands with streams. Wetness conditions, as defined by drought indices and runoff, were positively correlated with wetland extent, but less consistently correlated with measures of surface water connectivity. The degree of wetland-wetland merging was found to depend less on total wetland area or density, and more on climate conditions, as well as the threshold for how wetland/upland was defined. In contrast, the merging of wetlands with streams was positively correlated with stream density, and inversely related to wetland density. Conclusions. Characterizing the degree of surface water connectivity within the Prairie Pothole Region in North America requires consideration of 1) climate-driven variation in wetness conditions and 2) within-region variation in wetland and stream spatial arrangements.

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2014

Geophysical and hydrologic studies of lake seepage variability

Variations in lake seepage were studied along a 130 m shoreline of Mirror Lake NH. Seepage was downward from the lake to groundwater; rates measured from 28 seepage meters varied from 0 to −282 cm/d. Causes of this variation were investigated using electrical resistivity surveys and lakebed sediment characterization. Two-dimensional (2D) resistivity surveys showed a transition in lakebed sediments from outwash to till that correlated with high- and low-seepage zones, respectively. However, the 2D survey was not able to predict smaller scale variations within these facies. In the outwash, fast seepage was associated with permeability variations in a thin (2 cm) layer of sediments at the top of the lakebed. In the till, where seepage was slower than that in the outwash, a three-dimensional resistivity survey mapped a point of high seepage associated with heterogeneity (lower resistivity and likely higher permeability). Points of focused flow across the sediment–water interface are difficult to detect and can transmit a large percentage of total exchange. Using a series of electrical resistivity geophysical methods in combination with hydrologic data to locate heterogeneities that affect seepage rates can help guide seepage meter placement. Improving our understanding of the causes and types of heterogeneity in lake seepage will provide better data for lake budgets and prediction of mass transfer of solutes or contaminants between lakes and groundwater.

Groundwater↗
USGS2012

Temperature logging of groundwater in bedrock wells for geothermal gradient characterization in New Hampshire, 2012

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the New Hampshire Geological Survey, measured the fluid temperature of groundwater in deep bedrock wells in the State of New Hampshire in order to characterize geothermal gradients in bedrock. All wells selected for the study had low water yields, which correspond to low groundwater flow from fractures. This reduced the potential for flow-induced temperature changes that would mask the natural geothermal gradient in the bedrock. All the wells included in this study were privately owned, and permission to use the wells was obtained from homeowners before logging. Maximum groundwater temperatures at the bottom of the logs were between 11.7 and 17.3 degrees Celsius. Geothermal gradients were generally higher than typically reported for other water wells in the United States. Some of the high gradients were associated with high natural gamma emissions. Groundwater flow was discernible in 5 of the 10 wells studied but only obscured the portion of the geothermal gradient signal where groundwater actually flowed through the well. Temperature gradients varied by mapped bedrock type but can also vary by differences in mineralogy or rock type within the wells.

New Hampshire↗
USGS2016

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

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

Louisana↗
USGS2018

A practical primer on geostatistics

Introduction The Challenge —Most geological phenomena are extraordinarily complex in their interrelationships and vast in their geographical extension. Ordinarily, engineers and geoscientists are faced with corporate or scientific requirements to properly prepare geological models with measurements involving a small fraction of the entire area or volume of interest. Exact description of a system such as an oil reservoir is neither feasible nor economically possible. The results are necessarily uncertain. Note that the uncertainty is not an intrinsic property of the systems; it is the result of incomplete knowledge by the observer. The Aim of Geostatistics —The main objective of geostatistics is the characterization of spatial systems that are incompletely known, systems that are common in geology. A key difference from classical statistics is that geostatistics uses the sampling location of every measurement. Unless the measurements show spatial correlation, the application of geostatistics is pointless. Ordinarily the need for additional knowledge goes beyond a few points, which explains the display of results graphically as fishnet plots, block diagrams, and maps. Geostatistical Methods —Geostatistics is a collection of numerical techniques for the characterization of spatial attributes using primarily two tools: probabilistic models, which are used for spatial data in a manner similar to the way in which time-series analysis characterizes temporal data, or pattern recognition techniques. The probabilistic models are used as a way to handle uncertainty in results away from sampling locations, making a radical departure from alternative approaches like inverse distance estimation methods. Differences with Time Series —On dealing with time-series analysis, users frequently concentrate their attention on extrapolations for making forecasts. Although users of geostatistics may be interested in extrapolation, the methods work at their best interpolating. This simple difference has significant methodological implications. Historical Remarks —As a discipline, geostatistics was firmly established in the 1960s by the French engineer Georges Matheron, who was interested in the appraisal of ore reserves in mining. Geostatistics did not develop overnight. Like other disciplines, it has built on previous results, many of which were formulated with different objectives in various fields. Pioneers —Seminal ideas conceptually related to what today we call geostatistics or spatial statistics are found in the work of several pioneers, including: 1940s: A.N. Kolmogorov in turbulent flow and N. Wiener in stochastic processing; 1950s: D. Krige in mining; 1960s: B. Mathern in forestry and L.S. Gandin in meteorology Calculations —Serious applications of geostatistics require the use of digital computers. Although for most geostatistical techniques rudimentary implementation from scratch is fairly straightforward, coding programs from scratch is recommended only as part of a practice that may help users to gain a better grasp of the formulations. Software —For professional work, the reader should employ software packages that have been thoroughly tested to handle any sampling scheme, that run as efficiently as possible, and that offer graphic capabilities for the analysis and display of results. This primer employs primarily the package Stanford Geomodeling Software (SGeMS) - recently developed at the Energy Resources Engineering Department at Stanford University - as a way to show how to obtain results practically. This applied side of the primer should not be interpreted as the notes being a manual for the use of SGeMS. The main objective of the primer is to help the reader gain an understanding of the fundamental concepts and tools in geostatistics. Organization of the Primer —The chapters of greatest importance are those covering kriging and simulation. All other materials are peripheral and are included for better comprehension of these main geostatistical modeling tools. The choice of kriging versus simulation is often a big puzzle to the uninitiated, let alone the different variants of both of them. Chapters 14, 18, and 19 are intended to shed light on those subjects. The critical aspect of assessing and modeling spatial correlation is covered in chapter 7. Chapters 2 and 3 review relevant concepts in classical statistics. Course Objectives —This course offers stochastic solutions to common problems in the characterization of complex geological systems. At the end of the course, participants should have: an understanding of the theoretical foundations of geostatistics; a good grasp of its possibilities and limitations; and reasonable familiarity with the SGeMS software, thus opening the possibility of practically applying geostatistics.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Mars Global Digital Dune Database; MC-1

The Mars Global Digital Dune Database presents data and describes the methodology used in creating the global database of moderate- to large-size dune fields on Mars. The database is being released in a series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Reports. The first release (Hayward and others, 2007) included dune fields from 65 degrees N to 65 degrees S (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1158/). The current release encompasses ~ 845,000 km2 of mapped dune fields from 65 degrees N to 90 degrees N latitude. Dune fields between 65 degrees S and 90 degrees S will be released in a future USGS Open-File Report. Although we have attempted to include all dune fields, some have likely been excluded for two reasons: (1) incomplete THEMIS IR (daytime) coverage may have caused us to exclude some moderate- to large-size dune fields or (2) resolution of THEMIS IR coverage (100m/pixel) certainly caused us to exclude smaller dune fields. The smallest dune fields in the database are ~ 1 km2 in area. While the moderate to large dune fields are likely to constitute the largest compilation of sediment on the planet, smaller stores of sediment of dunes are likely to be found elsewhere via higher resolution data. Thus, it should be noted that our database excludes all small dune fields and some moderate to large dune fields as well. Therefore, the absence of mapped dune fields does not mean that such dune fields do not exist and is not intended to imply a lack of saltating sand in other areas. Where availability and quality of THEMIS visible (VIS), Mars Orbiter Camera narrow angle (MOC NA), or Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) Context Camera (CTX) images allowed, we classified dunes and included some dune slipface measurements, which were derived from gross dune morphology and represent the prevailing wind direction at the last time of significant dune modification. It was beyond the scope of this report to look at the detail needed to discern subtle dune modification. It was also beyond the scope of this report to measure all slipfaces. We attempted to include enough slipface measurements to represent the general circulation (as implied by gross dune morphology) and to give a sense of the complex nature of aeolian activity on Mars. The absence of slipface measurements in a given direction should not be taken as evidence that winds in that direction did not occur. When a dune field was located within a crater, the azimuth from crater centroid to dune field centroid was calculated, as another possible indicator of wind direction. Output from a general circulation model (GCM) is also included. In addition to polygons locating dune fields, the database includes THEMIS visible (VIS) and Mars Orbiter Camera Narrow Angle (MOC NA) images that were used to build the database. The database is presented in a variety of formats. It is presented as an ArcReader project which can be opened using the free ArcReader software. The latest version of ArcReader can be downloaded at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/download.html. The database is also presented in an ArcMap project. The ArcMap project allows fuller use of the data, but requires ESRI ArcMap(Registered) software. A fuller description of the projects can be found in the NP_Dunes_ReadMe file (NP_Dunes_ReadMe folder_ and the NP_Dunes_ReadMe_GIS file (NP_Documentation folder). For users who prefer to create their own projects, the data are available in ESRI shapefile and geodatabase formats, as well as the open Geography Markup Language (GML) format. A printable map of the dunes and craters in the database is available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) document. The map is also included as a JPEG file. (NP_Documentation folder) Documentation files are available in PDF and ASCII (.txt) files. Tables are available in both Excel and ASCII (.txt)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Hydrologic and landscape database for the Cache and White River National Wildlife Refuges and contributing watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

A hydrologic and landscape database was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Cache River and White River National Wildlife Refuges and their contributing watersheds in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The database is composed of a set of ASCII files, Microsoft Access® files, Microsoft Excel® files, an Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS® geodatabase, ESRI ArcGRID® raster datasets, and an ESRI ArcReader® published map. The database was developed as an assessment and evaluation tool to use in examining refuge-specific hydrologic patterns and trends as related to water availability for refuge ecosystems, habitats, and target species; and includes hydrologic time-series data, statistics, and hydroecological metrics that can be used to assess refuge hydrologic conditions and the availability of aquatic and riparian habitat. Landscape data that describe the refuge physiographic setting and the locations of hydrologic-data collection stations are also included in the database. Categories of landscape data include land cover, soil hydrologic characteristics, physiographic features, geographic and hydrographic boundaries, hydrographic features, regional runoff estimates, and gaging-station locations. The database geographic extent covers three hydrologic subregions—the Lower Mississippi–St Francis (0802), the Upper White (1101), and the Lower Arkansas (1111)—within which human activities, climatic variation, and hydrologic processes can potentially affect the hydrologic regime of the refuges and adjacent areas. Database construction has been automated to facilitate periodic updates with new data. The database report (1) serves as a user guide for the database, (2) describes the data-collection, data-reduction, and data-analysis methods used to construct the database, (3) provides a statistical and graphical description of the database, and (4) provides detailed information on the development of analytical techniques designed to assess water availability for ecological needs.

Arkansas;Missouri;Oklahoma↗
USGS1992

Approximate changes in water levels in wells completed in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, 1977-92 and 1991-92, and measured compaction, 1973-91, in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report is one in a series of reports that depict water-level changes since 1977 and compaction of subsurface material since 1973. The report was prepared in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District and the City of Houston, and presents maps showing the approximate changes in water-levels in wells completed in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, 1977-92 and 1991-92 (figs. 1-4), and measured compations, 1973-91 (figs. 5 and 6), in the Houston-Galveston region. The Houston-Galveston region includes Harris and Galveston Counties and adjacent parts of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller, Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties.

Texas↗
USGS1993

Approximate changes in water levels in wells completed in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, 1977-93 and 1992-93, and measured compaction, 1973-92, in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report is one in a series of reports that depict water-level changes since 1977 and compaction of subsurface material since 1973. The report was prepared in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District and the City of Houston, and presents maps showing the approximate changes in water levels in wells completed in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, 1977-93 and 1992-93 (figs. 1-4), and measured compaction, 1973-92 (figs. 5 and 6), in the Houston-Galveston region. The Houston-Galveston region includes Harris and Galveston Counties and adjacent parts of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller, Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1994

Approximate changes in water levels in wells completed in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, 1977-94 and 1993-94, and measured compaction, 1973-93, in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report is one in a series of reports that depict water-level changes since 1977 and compaction of subsurface material since 1973. The report was prepared in cooperation with the City of Houston and the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, and presents maps showing the approximate changes in water levels in wells completed in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, 1977-94 and 1993-94 (figs. 1-4), extensometer site locations (fig. 5), and measured compaction, 1973-93 (fig. 6), in the Houston-Galveston region. Water-level change maps were prepared previously by Kasmarek and others (1993). The Houston-galveston region includes Harris and Galveston Counties and adjacent parts of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller, Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties.

Texas↗