Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Scientific Data - Nature”

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 595 records · Page 33Linked to original sources
USGS2014

Accuracy assessment of the U.S. Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset, and comparison with other large-area elevation datasets: SRTM and ASTER

The National Elevation Dataset (NED) is the primary elevation data product produced and distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The NED provides seamless raster elevation data of the conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. island territories, Mexico, and Canada. The NED is derived from diverse source datasets that are processed to a specification with consistent resolutions, coordinate system, elevation units, and horizontal and vertical datums. The NED serves as the elevation layer of The National Map, and it provides basic elevation information for earth science studies and mapping applications in the United States and most of North America. An important part of supporting scientific and operational use of the NED is provision of thorough dataset documentation including data quality and accuracy metrics. The focus of this report is on the vertical accuracy of the NED and on comparison of the NED with other similar large-area elevation datasets, namely data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Interoperability for ecosystem service assessments: Why, how, who, and for whom?

Despite continued, rapid growth in the literature, the fragmentation of information is a major barrier to more timely and credible ecosystem services (ES) assessments. A major reason for this fragmentation is the currently limited state of interoperability of ES data, models, and software. The FAIR Principles, a recent reformulation of long-standing open science goals, highlight the importance of making scientific knowledge Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable . Critically, FAIR aims to make science more transparent and transferable by both people and computers . However, it is easier to make data and models findable and accessible through data and code repositories than to achieve interoperability and reusability. Achieving interoperability will require more consistent adherence to current technical best practices and, more critically, to build consensus about and consistently use semantics that can represent ES-relevant phenomena. Building on recent examples from major international initiatives for ES (IPBES, SEEA, GEO BON), we illustrate strategies to address interoperability, discuss their importance, and describe potential gains for individual researchers and practitioners and the field of ES. Although interoperability comes with many challenges, including greater scientific coordination than today’s status quo, it is technically achievable and offers potentially transformative advantages to ES assessments needed to mainstream their use by decision makers. Individuals and organizations active in ES research and practice can play critical roles in creating widespread interoperability and reusability of ES science. A representative community of practice targeting interoperability for ES would help advance these goals.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2012

Sensitivity of spring phenology to warming across temporal and spatial climate gradients in two independent databases

Disparate ecological datasets are often organized into databases post hoc and then analyzed and interpreted in ways that may diverge from the purposes of the original data collections. Few studies, however, have attempted to quantify how biases inherent in these data (for example, species richness, replication, climate) affect their suitability for addressing broad scientific questions, especially in under-represented systems (for example, deserts, tropical forests) and wild communities. Here, we quantitatively compare the sensitivity of species first flowering and leafing dates to spring warmth in two phenological databases from the Northern Hemisphere. One—PEP725—has high replication within and across sites, but has low species diversity and spans a limited climate gradient. The other—NECTAR—includes many more species and a wider range of climates, but has fewer sites and low replication of species across sites. PEP725, despite low species diversity and relatively low seasonality, accurately captures the magnitude and seasonality of warming responses at climatically similar NECTAR sites, with most species showing earlier phenological events in response to warming. In NECTAR, the prevalence of temperature responders significantly declines with increasing mean annual temperature, a pattern that cannot be detected across the limited climate gradient spanned by the PEP725 flowering and leafing data. Our results showcase broad areas of agreement between the two databases, despite significant differences in species richness and geographic coverage, while also noting areas where including data across broader climate gradients may provide added value. Such comparisons help to identify gaps in our observations and knowledge base that can be addressed by ongoing monitoring and research efforts. Resolving these issues will be critical for improving predictions in understudied and under-sampled systems outside of the temperature seasonal mid-latitudes.

Northern Hemisphere↗
USGS2006

Environmental contaminants in fish and their associated risk to piscivorous wildlife in the Yukon River Basin, Alaska

Organochlorine chemical residues and elemental contaminants were measured in northern pike (Esox lucius), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), and burbot (Lota lota) from 10 sites in the Yukon River Basin (YRB) during 2002. Contaminant concentrations were compared to historical YRB data and to toxicity thresholds for fish and piscivorous wildlife from the scientific literature. A risk analysis was conducted to screen for potential hazards to piscivorous wildlife for contaminants that exceeded literature-based toxicity thresholds. Concentrations of total DDT (sum of p,p???-homologs; 1.09-13.6 ng/g), total chlordane (0.67-7.5 ng/g), dieldrin (<0.16-0.6 ng/g), toxaphene (<11-34 ng/g), total PCBs (<20-87 ng/g), TCDD-EQ (???1.7 pg/g), arsenic (0.03-1.95 ??g/g), cadmium (<0.02-0.12 ??g/g), copper (0.41-1.49 ??g/g), and lead (<0.21-0.27 ??g/g) did not exceed toxicity thresholds for growth and reproduction in YRB fish. Concentrations of mercury (0.08-0.65 ??g/g), selenium (0.23-0.85 ??g/g), and zinc (11-56 ??g/g) exceeded toxicity thresholds in one or more samples and were included in the risk analysis for piscivorous wildlife. No effect hazard concentrations (NEHCs) and low effect hazard concentrations (LEHCs), derived from literature-based toxicity reference values and avian and mammalian life history parameters, were calculated for mercury, selenium, and zinc. Mercury concentrations in YRB fish exceeded the NEHCs for all bird and small mammal models, which indicated that mercury concentrations in fish may represent a risk to piscivorous wildlife throughout the YRB. Low risk to piscivorous wildlife was associated with selenium and zinc concentrations in YRB fish. Selenium and zinc concentrations exceeded the NEHCs and LEHCs for only the small bird model. These results indicate that mercury should continue to be monitored and assessed in Alaskan fish and wildlife. ?? 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxico↗
USGS2017

A synoptic view of the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)

Probabilistic forecasting of earthquake‐producing fault ruptures informs all major decisions aimed at reducing seismic risk and improving earthquake resilience. Earthquake forecasting models rely on two scales of hazard evolution: long‐term (decades to centuries) probabilities of fault rupture, constrained by stress renewal statistics, and short‐term (hours to years) probabilities of distributed seismicity, constrained by earthquake‐clustering statistics. Comprehensive datasets on both hazard scales have been integrated into the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3). UCERF3 is the first model to provide self‐consistent rupture probabilities over forecasting intervals from less than an hour to more than a century, and it is the first capable of evaluating the short‐term hazards that result from multievent sequences of complex faulting. This article gives an overview of UCERF3, illustrates the short‐term probabilities with aftershock scenarios, and draws some valuable scientific conclusions from the modeling results. In particular, seismic, geologic, and geodetic data, when combined in the UCERF3 framework, reject two types of fault‐based models: long‐term forecasts constrained to have local Gutenberg–Richter scaling, and short‐term forecasts that lack stress relaxation by elastic rebound.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2014

The 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake and tsunamis: A modern perspective and enduring legacies

The magnitude 9.2 Great Alaska Earthquake that struck south-central Alaska at 5:36 p.m. on Friday, March 27, 1964, is the largest recorded earthquake in U.S. history and the second-largest earthquake recorded with modern instruments. The earthquake was felt throughout most of mainland Alaska, as far west as Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands some 480 miles away, and at Seattle, Washington, more than 1,200 miles to the southeast of the fault rupture, where the Space Needle swayed perceptibly. The earthquake caused rivers, lakes, and other waterways to slosh as far away as the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Water-level recorders in 47 states—the entire Nation except for Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island— registered the earthquake. It was so large that it caused the entire Earth to ring like a bell: vibrations that were among the first of their kind ever recorded by modern instruments. The Great Alaska Earthquake spawned thousands of lesser aftershocks and hundreds of damaging landslides, submarine slumps, and other ground failures. Alaska’s largest city, Anchorage, located west of the fault rupture, sustained heavy property damage. Tsunamis produced by the earthquake resulted in deaths and damage as far away as Oregon and California. Altogether the earthquake and subsequent tsunamis caused 129 fatalities and an estimated $2.3 billion in property losses (in 2013 dollars). Most of the population of Alaska and its major transportation routes, ports, and infrastructure lie near the eastern segment of the Aleutian Trench that ruptured in the 1964 earthquake. Although the Great Alaska Earthquake was tragic because of the loss of life and property, it provided a wealth of data about subductionzone earthquakes and the hazards they pose. The leap in scientific understanding that followed the 1964 earthquake has led to major breakthroughs in earth science research worldwide over the past half century. This fact sheet commemorates Great Alaska Earthquake and examines the advances in knowledge and technology that have helped to improve earthquake preparation and response both in Alaska and around the world.

Alaska↗
USGS1979

Grain-size analyses of Ordovician sandstones from the Midwestern states

Certain Ordovician sandstones of the Midwestern States were investigated for the purpose of determining the range in size of constituent sand grains. Although many size analyses of the same formations have been reported in the literature, the methods of sample collection, preparation, and sieving were not uniform, and the results of the different studies therefore are not comparable. This investigation is intended to supply a uniform data base that will be useful for a variety of practical and scientific purposes. A total of 276 samples was collected from the St. Peter Sandstone and Everton, Oil Creek, McLish, and Tulip Creek Formations at the 29 locations shown on figure 1. At each location 4-14 samples were taken at about equal intervals from the base to the top of the sandstone exposure. Each sample of about 500 gm was obtained from a strati-graphic interval of no more than 10 cm. Each sample was air dried, and lumps were broken with a rubber pestle (some samples were case-hardened but none was firmly cemented). A representative fraction of 50 to 120 gm was separated by use of a sample splitter. This fraction was then weighed to the nearest .1 gm and agitated for 30 seconds in water in a kitchen blender. The process efficiently broke apart the remaining small lumps and freed the sand surfaces of clay and almost all of the iron oxide. The sample was then washed on a sieve having openings of .06 mm in order to remove clay and silt-size particles. The remaining sample, composed of clean loose sand, was then oven-dried. Each sample of dry sand was sieved for 10 minutes in a stack of 12 or more sieves on a mechanical shaker, and the size fractions were weighed to the nearest .1 gm. The weight of the discarded silt and clay fraction was determined by subtracting the weight of the sand from the weight of the unwashed sample. In the following tables, the figures at the left are diameters of sieve openings; samples, numbered on the top line, run from base of section (or exposure) to the top of the formation; figures in the body of the tables are grams of samples retained on the indicated sieves; bars in place of figures indicate unused sieves.

Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Okl↗
USGS1982

Two BASIC computer programs for the determination of in situ stresses using the CSIRO hollow inclusion stress cell and the USBM borehole deformation gage

The mathematical method of determining in-situ stresses by overcoring, using either the U.S. Bureau of Mines Borehole Deformation Gage or the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Hollow Inclusion Stress Cell, is summarized, and data reduction programs for each type of instrument, written in BASIC, are presented. The BASIC programs offer several advantages over previously available FORTRAN programs. They can be executed on a desk-top microcomputer at or near the field site, allowing the investigator to assess the quality of the data and make decisions on the need for additional testing while the crew is still in the field. Also, data input is much simpler than with currently available FORTRAN programs; either English or SI units can be used; and standard deviations of the principal stresses are computed as well as those of the geographic components.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

State of Florida 1:24,000- and 1:100,000-scale quadrangle index map - Highlighting low-lying areas derived from USGS Digital Elevation Models

In support of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) disaster preparedness efforts, this map depicts 1:24,000- and 1:100,000-scale quadrangle footprints over a color shaded relief representation of the State of Florida. The first 30 feet of relief above mean sea level are displayed as brightly colored 5-foot elevation bands, which highlight low-elevation areas at a coarse spatial resolution. Standard USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1 arc-second (nominally 30-meter) digital elevation model (DEM) data are the basis for the map, which is designed to be used at a broad scale and for informational purposes only. The NED source data for this map consists of a mixture of 30-meter- and 10-meter-resolution DEMs. The NED data were derived from the original 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic map bare-earth contours, which were converted into gridded quadrangle-based DEM tiles at a constant post spacing (grid cell size) of either 30 meters (data before the mid-1990s) or 10 meters (mid-1990s and later data). These individual-quadrangle DEMs were then converted to spherical coordinates (latitude/longitude decimal degrees) and edge-matched to ensure seamlessness. Figure 1 shows a similar representation for the entire U.S. Gulf Coast, using coarsened 30-meter NED data. Areas below sea level typically are surrounded by levees or some other type of flood-control structures. State and county boundary, hydrography, city, and road layers were modified from USGS National Atlas data downloaded in 2003. Quadrangle names, dated April, 2006, were obtained from the Federal Geographic Names Information System. The NED data were downloaded in 2004.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2008

Gulf of Mexico region — Highlighting low-lying areas derived from USGS Digital Elevation Data

In support of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) disaster preparedness efforts, this map depicts a color shaded relief representation of the area surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. The first 30 feet of relief above mean sea level are displayed as brightly colored 5-foot elevation bands, which highlight low-elevation areas at a coarse spatial resolution. Standard USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1 arc-second (nominally 30-meter) digital elevation model (DEM) data are the basis for the map, which is designed to be used at a broad scale and for informational purposes only. The NED data were derived from the original 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic map bare-earth contours, which were converted into gridded quadrangle-based DEM tiles at a constant post spacing (grid cell size) of either 30 meters (data before the mid-1990s data) or 10 meters (mid-1990s and later data). These individual-quadrangle DEMs were then converted to spherical coordinates (latitude/longitude decimal degrees) and edge-matched to ensure seamlessness. Approximately one-half of the area shown on this map has DEM source data at a 30-meter resolution, with the remaining half consisting of 10-meter contour-derived DEM data or higher-resolution LIDAR data. Areas below sea level typically are surrounded by levees or some other type of flood-control structures. State and county boundary, hydrography, city, and road layers were modified from USGS National Atlas data downloaded in 2003. The NED data were downloaded in 2005.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas↗
USGS2008

State of Louisiana - Highlighting low-lying areas derived from USGS Digital Elevation Data

In support of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) disaster preparedness efforts, this map depicts a color shaded relief representation highlighting the State of Louisiana and depicts the surrounding areas using muted elevation colors. The first 30 feet of relief above mean sea level are displayed as brightly colored 5-foot elevation bands, which highlight low-elevation areas at a coarse spatial resolution. Areas below sea level typically are surrounded by levees or some other type of flood-control structures. Standard USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1 arc-second (nominally 30-meter) digital elevation model (DEM) data are the basis for the map, which is designed to be used at a broad scale and for informational purposes only. The NED data are a mixture of data and were derived from the original 1:24,000-scale USGS topographic map bare-earth contours, which were converted into gridded quadrangle-based DEM tiles at a constant post spacing (grid cell size) of either 30 meters (data before the mid-1990s) or 10 meters (mid-1990s and later data). These individual-quadrangle DEMs were then converted to spherical coordinates (latitude/longitude decimal degrees) and edge-matched to ensure seamlessness. Approximately one-half of the area shown on this map has DEM source data at a 30-meter resolution, with the remaining half consisting of mostly 10-meter contour-derived DEM data and some small areas of higher-resolution LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) data along parts of the coastline. Areas below sea level typically are surrounded by levees or some other type of flood-control structures. State and parish boundary, hydrography, city, and road layers were modified from USGS National Atlas data downloaded in 2003. The NED data were downloaded in 2007.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2004

Investigation of hydroacoustic flow-monitoring alternatives at the Sacramento River at Freeport, California: results of the 2002-2004 pilot study

The Sacramento River at Freeport is a tidally affected channel approximately 620 feet wide located at the northern boundary of the Sacramento?San Joaquin River Delta, California. In 1978, an acoustic velocity meter was installed at Freeport to monitor the flow. The acoustic velocity meter was calibrated successfully and has been used continuously since that time. Although the calibration has been extremely stable, an increasing number of maintenance problems prompted a search for alternatives to monitor discharge at this location. Two sideward-looking acoustic Doppler velocity meters were tested in a pilot study from 2002-2004: a short-range system and a long-range system. The pilot study was conducted over a wide range of hydrologic conditions and both sideward-l-ooking acoustic Doppler velocity meters have performed well at this location and have been calibrated successfully. As of February 2004, the short-range system had a robust calibration and a higher data-recovery rate, therefore, it was selected as the primary replacement of the acoustic velocity meter, with the long-range system providing real-time data redundancy to minimize data loss.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2005

Simulated ground-water flow for a pond-dominated aquifer system near Great Sandy Bottom Pond, Pembroke, Massachusetts

A ground-water flow simulation for a 66.4-square-mile area around Great Sandy Bottom (GSB) Pond (105 acres) near Pembroke, Massachusetts, was developed for use by local and State water managers to assess the yields for public water supply of local ponds and wells for average climatic and drought conditions and the effects of water withdrawals on nearby water levels and streamflows. Wetlands and ponds cover about 30 percent of the study area and the aquifer system is dominated by interactions between ground water and the ponds. The three largest surface-water bodies in the study area are Silver Lake (640 acres), Monponsett Pond (590 acres), and Oldham Pond (236 acres). The study area is drained by tributaries of the Taunton River to the southwest, the South and North Rivers to the northeast, and the Jones River to the southeast. In 2002, 10.8 million gallons per day of water was exported from ponds and 3.5 million gallons per day from wells was used locally for public supply. A transient ground-water-flow model with 69 monthly stress periods spanning the period from January 1998 through September 2003 was calibrated to stage at GSB Pond and nearby Silver Lake and streamflow and water levels collected from September 2002 through September 2003. The calibrated model was used to assess hydrologic responses to a variety of water-use and climatic conditions. Simulation of predevelopment (no pumping or export) average monthly (1949-2002) water-level conditions caused the GSB Pond level to increase by 6.3 feet from the results of a simulation using average 2002 pumping for all wells, withdrawals, and exports. Most of this decline can be attributed to pumping, withdrawals, and exports of water from sites away from GSB Pond. The effects of increasing the export rate from GSB Pond by 1.25 and 1.5 times the 2002 rate were a lowering of pond levels by a maximum of 1.6 and 2.8 feet, respectively. Simulated results for two different drought conditions, one mild drought similar to that of 1979-82 and a more severe drought similar to that of 1963-66, but with current (2002) pumping, were compared to results for average monthly recharge conditions (1949-2002). Simulated mild drought conditions showed a reduction of GSB Pond level of about 1.3 feet and a lower streamflow of about 1.7 percent in the nearby stream. Simulated severe drought conditions reduced the pond level at GSB Pond by almost 7 feet and lowered streamflow by about 37 percent. Varying cranberry-irrigation practices had little effect on simulated GSB Pond water levels, but may be important in other ponds. The model was most sensitive to changes in areal recharge. An increase and decrease of 22 percent in recharge produced changes in the GSB Pond water level of +1.4 feet and -2.4 feet, respectively. The accuracy of simulation results was best in the central portion of the study area in the immediate location of GSB Pond. The model was developed with the study-area boundary far enough away from the GSB Pond area that the boundary would have minimal effect on the water levels in GSB Pond, nearby ponds, and the underlying aquifer system. The model is best suited for use by local and State water managers to assess the effects of different withdrawal scenarios for wells and ponds near GSB Pond and for general delineation of areas contributing recharge to wells and ponds in the vicinity of GSB Pond. The model in its current form may not be well suited to detailed analyses of water budgets and flow patterns for parts of the study area farther from GSB Pond without further investigation, calibration, and data collection.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2009

Method for Estimating Water Withdrawals for Livestock in the United States, 2005

Livestock water use includes ground water and surface water associated with livestock watering, feedlots, dairy operations, and other on-farm needs. The water may be used for drinking, cooling, sanitation, waste disposal, and other needs related to the animals. Estimates of water withdrawals for livestock are needed for water planning and management. This report documents a method used to estimate withdrawals of fresh ground water and surface water for livestock in 2005 for each county and county equivalent in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Categories of livestock included dairy cattle, beef and other cattle, hogs and pigs, laying hens, broilers and other chickens, turkeys, sheep and lambs, all goats, and horses (including ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys). Use of the method described in this report could result in more consistent water-withdrawal estimates for livestock that can be used by water managers and planners to determine water needs and trends across the United States. Water withdrawals for livestock in 2005 were estimated by using water-use coefficients, in gallons per head per day for each animal type, and livestock-population data. Coefficients for various livestock for most States were obtained from U.S. Geological Survey water-use program personnel or U.S. Geological Survey water-use publications. When no coefficient was available for an animal type in a State, the median value of reported coefficients for that animal was used. Livestock-population data were provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. County estimates were further divided into ground-water and surface-water withdrawals for each county and county equivalent. County totals from 2005 were compared to county totals from 1995 and 2000. Large deviations from 1995 or 2000 livestock withdrawal estimates were investigated and generally were due to comparison with reported withdrawals, differences in estimation techniques, differences in livestock coefficients, or use of livestock-population data from different sources. The results of this study were distributed to U.S. Geological Survey water-use program personnel in each State during 2007. Water-use program personnel are required to submit estimated withdrawals for all categories of use in their States to the National Water-Use Information Program for inclusion in a national report describing water use in the United States during 2005. Water-use program personnel had the option of submitting these estimates, a modified version of these estimates, or their own set of estimates or reported data. Estimated withdrawals resulting from the method described in this report are not presented herein to avoid potential inconsistencies with estimated withdrawals for livestock that will be presented in the national report, as different methods used by water-use personnel may result in different withdrawal estimates. Estimated withdrawals also are not presented to avoid potential disclosure of data for individual livestock operations.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2019

Documentation of a Soil-Water-Balance Model to estimate recharge to Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Mesozoic Basin fractured-rock aquifers, Fauquier County, Virginia, 1996 through 2015

This report documents a Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) model that was developed for an area covering the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Mesozoic basin fractured-rock aquifers in Fauquier County, Virginia, for the calendar years 1996–2015. The SWB model includes an area of 1,498 square miles, divided into 1,076-square-foot (100-square-meter) grid cells on which daily groundwater recharge was estimated using existing elevation, meteorological, land-use, and soil property datasets. Daily groundwater recharge estimates obtained from the model were summarized annually, and annual model output was compared to the results of the hydrograph separation method, PART, on streamflow data from two streamgages in Fauquier County with periods of continuous record overlapping those of the SWB model period (01643700 Goose Creek near Middleburg, Virginia, and 01656000 Cedar Run near Catlett, Virginia). Spatially distributed groundwater recharge results from the SWB model represent annual conditions and the 20-year average values for the years 1996–2015, including estimated recharge during a previously defined drought in 2001. The 20-year average recharge in Fauquier County from the SWB model ranged from 8.1 inches per year (in/yr) in Blue Ridge aquifers to 5.3 in/yr in Mesozoic basin aquifers. Although mean annual precipitation volumes vary slightly across the County, the contrast in recharge among the Blue Ridge and western Piedmont aquifers with that of the Mesozoic basin aquifers is largely a result of differences in soil infiltration capacity. Precipitation totals 20 percent below mean annual precipitation from 1996–2015 produced drought recharge rates that were less than 50 percent of mean annual recharge. The SWB model and model output, including spatially distributed annual estimates of groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration, and gross precipitation for the 1996 through 2015 model period, are publicly available as a U.S. Geological Survey data release.

Virginia↗
USGS2020

Bathymetry of Morris Lake (Newton Reservoir), New Jersey, 2018

Morris Lake, also known as Newton Reservoir, has been the source of drinking water for the Town of Newton, New Jersey, since the early 1900s. Although Morris Lake has been used as a source of drinking water for many years, its capacity was previously uncertain. In April 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection conducted a bathymetric survey of Morris Lake using a multibeam echosounder to map the reservoir. The points measured with the multibeam echosounder were combined with light detection and ranging data above the water surface and processed to create a 3.3-foot (1 meter) raster grid of the bathymetric surface, bathymetric contours at 2-foot intervals of depth and elevation, and an elevation-area-capacity table. The results of the bathymetric survey show that Morris Lake has a maximum depth of just over 119 feet with an average depth of 42 feet. Like the surrounding topography, parts of the reservoir are extremely steep. The capacity of the reservoir at full spillway level is 1,980 million gallons, with a corresponding surface area of 145 acres. The accuracy of the mapped multibeam echosounder bathymetric data was evaluated using a quality assurance dataset collected with a single-beam echosounder; 9,386 quality assurance points were spatially joined with the mapped raster surface to compute measurement errors. The calculated median point error for Morris Lake was 0.23 foot, the median absolute error was 0.35 foot, and the 95-percent accuracy was 2.68 feet. The largest errors occurred in the steepest areas of the reservoir and in unmeasured areas. Geospatial files of the bathymetry data, including the mapped bathymetric surface, contours, and capacity tables, quality assurance points, and associated metadata are available for download as part of an accompanying U.S. Geological Survey data release.

New Jersey↗
USGS2022

Groundwater-level contour map of Fauquier County, Virginia, October-November 2018

Groundwater withdrawals provide most public-water supplies and all private-domestic users in Fauquier County, Virginia, a fast-growing rural area southwest of Washington, D.C. Groundwater levels were measured in 129 wells during a county-wide synoptic survey from October 29 through November 2, 2018. Field measurements, combined with datapoints from the National Hydrography Dataset, were used to develop a county-wide groundwater-level contour map. Groundwater levels and withdrawals during the synoptic survey were near or slightly above long-term medians. Error analysis indicated that the estimated groundwater-level contours generally were lower than observed measurements, with a root-mean-squared error of 33.52 feet. Groundwater levels in Fauquier County are controlled largely by topography: low levels in the crystalline Blue Ridge aquifers in the northwestern part of the county contrast markedly with higher levels in the sedimentary Mesozoic Basin aquifers in the southeast. At current levels of groundwater withdrawal, and at the scale and scope of the synoptic survey, no cones of depression in the groundwater surface were detected. The Fauquier County groundwater-level contour map is available as a U.S. Geological Survey data release.

Virginia↗
USGS2025

VIPER site analysis

We needed to evaluate available orbital data of NASA’s Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission area in order to derive a variety of maps to help the science team identify scientifically interesting places for the rover to visit and to provide scientific context for our mission. Some of these maps also fulfilled engineering and mission design needs to enable safe and efficient landing and roving. We incorporated data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, the Lunar Orbital Laser Altimeter, the Mini-RF instrument, the Chandrayaan-2 Orbital High Resolution Camera, the Korean Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter’s Shadowcam, the Kaguya Spectral Profiler and Multiband Imager, and the Chandrayaan-1 Moon Mineralogy Mapper. We used a variety of techniques to build these maps, including stereogrammetry, shape-from-shading, ice stability depth and surface temperature calculations, and the horizon method for solar illumination and direct-to-Earth communications maps. Altogether, these maps allowed us to survey for boulders, evaluate features in permanently shadowed regions that VIPER might explore, provide mineralogic context for what VIPER’s instruments may learn, estimate the ages and radar properties of craters in the VIPER mission area, and evaluate the potential for gravity traverses with the rover. These data and techniques provided a rich set of information from which both the VIPER science team and engineering teams were able to draw in order to plan a safe landing and to plan a VIPER surface mission that will be both scientifically valuable and robust from an operational perspective.

The Planetary Science Journal↗