Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · ofr76547

Use of USGS earth-science products by county planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

Abstract

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, ordinances, and other planning activities was made for eight counties in the San Francisco Bay region--a region of almost five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 87 earth-science information products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all eight counties had planning staffs who were very familiar with SFBRS products and had made frequent use of such products; (2) all eight counties had prepared planning documents which cite SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies, seismic safety and public safety plan elements, general reference, and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) over 90 percent of the 87 SFBRS products were used at least once, and nine of the products were used over 30 times each for various county planning activities; and (5) at least 85 other USGS products were also used for various county planning activities. After the inventory, selected county officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked--among other things--to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth-science information. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for working maps were 1:62,500 or larger and for plan implementation were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) only one county had a geologist on its planning staff, although six others had the benefit of geotechnical services from private consulting firms, county engineering staffs, or the State Division of Mines and Geology; (3) seven of the eight counties expressed some problems in using the products, primarily because of their small scale or lack of detail; (4) all eight counties expected to continue to use the products and expressed a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other information; (5) all eight counties suggested specific improvements to future products, primarily larger scale or more detail and fewer technical or more interpretive products; and (6) all eight counties received educational, advisory, and review services from USGS personnel. Seventeen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various county planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include four planning studies, seven plans, and two ordinances. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the counties in the Bay region are very familiar with, have made frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of county planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring emerging critical issues and analyzing new state and federal laws and regulations so as to better anticipate and respond to county earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and user needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development so as to husband staff resources; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by counties; (6) releasing earth-science information earlier and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William J. Kockelman. 1976. Use of USGS earth-science products by county planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr76547

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗