SEARCH · USGS Science
Results for “Geological Survey of Alabama Circular”
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.
Digital surfaces and hydrogeologic data for the Mesozoic through early Tertiary rocks in the Southeastern Coastal Plain in parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida
A digital dataset of hydrogeologic data for Mesozoic through early Tertiary rocks in the Southeastern Coastal Plain was developed using data from five U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports published between 1951 and 1996. These reports contain maps and data depicting the extent and elevation of the Southeast Coastal Plain stratigraphic and hydrogeologic units in Florida and parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The reports are: Professional Paper 1410-B (Renken, 1996), Professional Paper 1088 (Brown and others, 1979), Professional Paper 524-G (Applin and Applin, 1967), Professional Paper 447 (Applin and Applin, 1965), and Circular 91 (Applin, 1951). The digital dataset provides hydrogeologic data for the USGS Energy Resources Program assessment of potential reservoirs for carbon sequestration and for the USGS Groundwater Resource Program assessment of saline aquifers in the southeastern United States. A Geographic Information System (ArcGIS 9.3.1) was used to construct 33 digital (raster) surfaces representing the top or base of key stratigraphic and hydrogeologic units. In addition, the Geographic Information System was used to generate 102 geo-referenced scanned maps from the five reports and a geo-database containing structural and thickness contours, faults, extent polygons, and common features. The dataset also includes point data of well construction and stratigraphic elevations and scanned images of two geologic cross sections and a nomenclature chart.
Strategies for managing the effects of urban development on streams
Urban development remains an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The U.S. population grew by 17 percent from 1982 to 1997, while urbanized land area grew by 47 percent, suggesting that urban land consumption far outpaced population growth (Fulton and others, 2001; Sierra Club, 2003; American Farmland Trust, 2009). Eighty percent of Americans now live in metropolitan areas. Each American effectively occupies about 20 percent more developed land (for housing, schools, shopping, roads, and other related services) than 20 years ago (Markham and Steinzor, 2006). Passel and Cohn (2008) predict a dramatic 48 percent increase in the population of the United States from 2005 to 2050. The advantages and challenges of living in these developed areas—convenience, congestion, employment, pollution—are part of the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Nowhere are the environmental changes associated with urban development more evident than in urban streams. The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program investigation of the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems (EUSE) during 1999–2004 provides the most spatially comprehensive analysis of stream impacts of urban development that has been completed in the United States. A nationally consistent study design was used in nine metropolitan areas of the United States—Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A summary report published as part of the EUSE study describes several of these impacts on urban streams ( Coles and others, 2012 ).
The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Alabama
Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Alabama, elevation data are critical for flood risk management; infrastructure and construction management; wildfire management, planning, and response; natural resources conservation; geologic resource assessment and hazards mitigation; and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 for the conterminous United States and quality level 5 ifsar data for Alaska with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle provided the highest benefit/cost ratios. The new 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.
Effects of urban development on stream ecosystems in nine metropolitan study areas across the United States
Urban development is an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The urban footprint on the American landscape has expanded during a century and a half of almost continuous development. Eighty percent of Americans now live in metropolitan areas, and the advantages and challenges of living in these developed areas—convenience, congestion, employment, pollution—are part of the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Nowhere are the environmental changes associated with urban development more evident than in urban streams. Contaminants, habitat destruction, and increasing streamflow flashiness resulting from urban development have been associated with the disruption of biological communities, particularly the loss of sensitive aquatic species. Every stream is connected downstream to larger water bodies, including rivers, reservoirs, and ultimately coastal waters. Inputs of chemical contaminants or sediments at any point along the stream can cause degradation downstream with adverse effects on biological communities and on economically valuable resources, such as fisheries and tourism. In response to general concerns about the degradation of urban streams, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a national-scale, scientific investigation of the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems. Nine metropolitan study areas of the United States were selected—Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The studies were conducted in Salt Lake City, Birmingham, and Boston in 1999–2000; in Atlanta, Raleigh, and Denver in 2002–2003; and in Portland, Dallas, and Milwaukee in 2003–2004. The comprehensive investigation of all nine studies focused on three broad questions of interest to decision makers: What are the primary effects of urban development on stream ecosystems? How do the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems vary regionally across the country? Which urban-related stressors are most closely linked to biological community degradation, and how can multiple stressors be managed to protect stream health as a watershed becomes increasingly urbanized?
Water quality of the Mississippian carbonate aquifer in parts of middle Tennessee and northern Alabama, 1999
Water-quality data for nitrate, fecal-indicator bacteria, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds collected in parts of Middle Tennessee and northern Alabama indicate that the Mississippian carbonate aquifer in these areas is susceptible to contamination from point and nonpoint sources. Thirty randomly located wells (predominantly domestic), two springs, and two additional public-supply wells were sampled in the summer of 1999 as part of the U.S. Geological Survey?s National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. These wells and springs were sampled to characterize the occurrence and distribution of the above constituents in this karst aquifer of Mississippian age and to determine the principal environmental factors related to their occurrence.Nitrate and fecal indicator bacteria were frequently detected at the sampled sites. Nitrate exceeded the drinking-water maximum contaminant level of 10 milligrams per liter in two samples; the median concentration for all samples was about 1.5 milligrams per liter. Correlation of nitrate concentrations to the amount of cropland near a site and to pesticide detections indicates that fertilizer application is the predominant source of nitrogen to the aquifer. Fecal-indicator bacteria were present in samples from about 40 percent of the sites. The presence of fecal-indicator bacteria is weakly correlated to the depth to ground water but is not correlated to a specific land use near the sites.Pesticides and pesticide breakdown products (metabolites) were detected at 74 percent of the sites sampled. Concentrations generally were less than 1 microgram per liter and no pesticide detections exceeded drinking-water maximum contaminant levels. The maximum total pesticide concentration measured was about 4 micrograms per liter. Intensity of pesticide use, proximity of sites to areas of pesticide application, and soil hydrologic group were the primary factors affecting the occurrence of pesticides.Volatile organic compounds were detected at generally low concentrations at about 81 percent of the sites sampled. Concentrations of trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and 1,2-dichloropropane at three sites equalled or exceeded drinking-water maximum contaminant levels. The maximum concentration measured was 7.5 micrograms per liter of trichloroethylene. The presence of volatile organic compounds in the Mississippian carbonate aquifer was not related to hydrogeology, soil properties, or land use near the sites; although higher total volatile organic compound concentrations and greater numbers of compounds in samples generally were associated with a higher percentage of urban land use near a site. Chloroform was the most frequently detected compound, and correlation of low-level detections to the amount of wetlands near sites having these detections may indicate biogenic formation of chloroform.The relation between land use and water quality was stronger for constituents that are contributed to the environment systematically (fertilizer and pesticide applications), than those contributed inadvertently (leaking septic tanks or chemical spills or leaks). Land use and soils characterized in circular buffer areas near sites sampled in this karst aquifer explained some of the variation in nitrate concentration and presence of pesticides. Use of land use and soil data with greater detail than the large scale data used in this analysis and buffer areas based on well capacities and ground-water withdrawals might strengthen this type of analysis.
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program was involved in a number of notable events during 2017, many concerning our personnel. Dr. Barry Grand left his position as Leader of the Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to become the Cooperative Units Program Supervisor for the South, replacing Dr. Kevin Whalen who took over as Supervisor for the West. We welcomed Dr. Sarah Converse who left the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center to become Leader of the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Dr. Amanda Rosenberger joined the Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit as Assistant Leader, transferring from the Missouri Cooperative Unit. Dr. Scott Carleton left his position as Assistant Unit Leader in New Mexico to become Chief of the Region 2 Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We said farewell to many colleagues who retired. Their departure is bittersweet as we wish them health, happiness, and wellness in retirement. We will miss their companionship and the extraordinary contributions they have made to the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program and conservation. The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program has a record high number of vacant scientist positions due to a combination of retirements and base funding short-falls. These issues are affecting our ability to meet cooperator needs. Yet, we remain highly productive. For example, this year we released a report ( https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1427 ) containing abstracts of nearly 600 of our research projects, covering thematic areas ranging from advanced technologies to wildlife diseases. We provided highly competent, trained scientists and natural resource managers for our cooperators’ workforce. We delivered technical training and guidance to professional practitioners. We provided critical information to cooperators for decisions on species status assessments and management of species of greatest conservation need. This year we had an active presence at major national meetings, including the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference where we co-sponsored a workshop on continuing education as a means to bridge the gap between science and management. During the coming year, with support from the U.S. Geological Survey and our cooperators, we intend to reduce the number of vacancies in the program. It will take time and active support of our cooperators to get back to full strength, but I am committed to this goal and encouraged by the resolve of our partners. We look forward to an even more productive year in 2018!