Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Resources”

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 721 records · Page 40Linked to original sources

Water resources data, Virginia, water year 2001; Volume 1: Surface-water discharge and surface-water quality records

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Virginia each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Virginia."

Virginia↗

Water resources data, Virginia, water year 1991; Volume 1. Surface water and surface-water quality records

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Virginia each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Virginia."

Virginia↗

Water resources data, Virginia, water year 1992; Volume 1: Surface-water discharge and surface-water quality records

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Virginia each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Virginia."

Virginia↗

Water resources data, Virginia, water year 1993; Volume 2: Ground-water level and ground-water quality records

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Virginia each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Virginia."

Virginia↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1987

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Washington."

Washington↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1989

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Washington."

Washington↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1991

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Washington."

Washington↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1992

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Washington."

Washington↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1994

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Washington."

Washington↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1996

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data Washington." This report includes records on both surface and ground water in the State. Specifically, it contains: (1) Discharge records for 225 stream-gaging stations, 29 partial-record or miscellaneous streamflow stations, and 3 crest-stage partial-record streamflow station; (2) stage only records for 2 gaging stations; (3) stage and (or) content records for 34 lakes and reservoirs; (4) water-quality records for 68 stream, canal and drain sites; (5) water-level records for 4 observation wells; and (6) water quality record for 1 observation well. Records included for stream stages and for ground-water levels are only a small fraction of those obtained during the water year. This series of annual reports for Washington began with the 1961 water year with a report that contained only data relating to the quantities of surface water. For the 1964 water year, a similar report was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year, the report format was changed to present, in one volume, data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels.

Washington↗

Water resources data, Washington, water year 1999

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data—Washington."

Washington↗

Geology and water resources of Portage County, Wisconsin

Portage County has abundant resources of generally good quality water and, although water problems exist locally, depletion or general scarcity of water is not likely in the foreseeable future. The county receives annually about 31 inches of precipitation, of which about 21 inches is lost as evaportranspiration. The average annual water yield is about 10.6 inches and consists of about 10.3 inches of runoff to streams, about 0.2 inch of water which leaves the county as underflow, and about 0.1 inch of water which is used consumptively. The surface-water resources include 104 lakes, about 110 miles of streams that discharge about 600 cfs (cubic feet per second) to the Wisconsin, Waupaca, and Little Wolf Rivers, and the Wisconsin River which has an average flow of about 2.400 cfs. Extensive deposits of outwash sand and gravel, sandy till, and alluvium release annually about 460 cfs of ground water to the streams. The principal source of ground water is thick deposits of glacial drift that occur over all but the northwestern part of the county. Although as much as 100 feet of sandstone underlies the drift in the southern part, it is not an important aquifer. Impermeable crystalline rocks of Precambrian age underlie all the aquifers and limit the downward movement of water. The county has been divided into areas having similar geologic and hydrologic conditions. These areas are here named the "sand-plain province," the "drift province," and the "drift-crystalline-rock province." The sand-plain province and the eastern part of the drift province have the greatest potential for development of large ground-water supplies. Wells yielding 1,000 to 2,000 gpm (gallons per minute) can be developed in the sand-plain province and wells yielding about 500 gpm can be developed in the drift province. Nearly all the communities in the county have water resources adequate for future expansion. An exception to this is Junction City where only a limited supply of poor quality water is readily available. Additional supplies can be developed from ground water in the Mill Creek area or from the Wisconsin River. In the sand-plain and drift provinces, ground-water runoff is about 9 inches a year and surface runoff is about 1 inch a year and of short duration. In the drift-crystalline-rock province, however, ground-water runoff is about 2 inches a year and surface runoff is about 8 inches a year and varies greatly in rate of flow. Surface and ground water are closely interrelated throughout the county and constitute a single resource. Streams, lakes, and marshes are the visible part of the ground-water surface and ground water moves slowly and continuously toward these surface points of discharge. Pumping for irrigation has temporarily lowered water levels in the vicinity of wells but has not lowered regional water levels. Pumpage has intercepted and utilized some of the recharge that would have been rapidly discharged from the aquifer, but it has not materially depleted the flow of streams. The 1955-59 decline in water levels and lake stages is attributed to a deficiency in precipitation and not to the increased pumpage from irrigation wells. To prevent excessive declines in water levels, high-capacity wells should be adequately spaced about 2,500 feet between wells pumping 1,000 gpm for 90 days. In the Stevens Point area, heavy pumping of wells near the Plover River induces recharge to ground water and thus reduces local declines in the water level. The chemical quality of ground water is generally good, but, locally, hard water and undesirable amounts of iron require treatment.

Wisconsin↗

Resource selection by black-footed ferrets in South Dakota and Montana

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), once extinct in the wild, remains one of the most critically endangered mammals in North America despite 18 years of reintroduction attempts. Because black-footed ferrets are specialized predators of prairie dogs (Cynomys sp.), a better understanding of how black-footed ferrets select resources might provide insight into how best to identify and manage reintroduction sites. We monitored ferret resource selection at two reintroduction sites with different densities of prairie dog populations-one that contained a high density of prairie dogs (Conata Basin, South Dakota) and one that was lower (UL Bend, Montana). We evaluated support for hypotheses about ferret resource selection as related to the distribution of active burrows used by black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), interactions between ferrets, and habitat edge effects. We found support for all three factors within both populations; however, they affected ferret resource selection differently at each site. Ferrets at Conata Basin tended to select areas with high prairie dog burrow density, closer to the colony edge, and that overlapped other ferret ranges. In contrast, ferrets at UL Bend tended not to select areas of high active prairie dog burrow density, avoided areas close to edge habitat, and females avoided areas occupied by other ferrets. The differences observed between the two sites might be best explained by prairie dog densities, which were higher at Conata Basin (119.3 active burrows per ha) than at UL Bend (44.4 active burrows per ha). Given the positive growth of ferret populations at Conata Basin, management that increases the density of prairie dogs might enhance ferret success within natural areas. To achieve long-term recovery of ferrets in the wild, conservationists should increasingly work across and outside natural area boundaries to increase prairie dog populations.

Natural Areas Journal↗

Hurdles to developing quantitative decision support for Endangered Species Act resource allocation

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oversees the recovery of many species protected by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Recent research suggests that a structured approach to allocating conservation resources could increase recovery outcomes for ESA listed species. Quantitative approaches to decision support can efficiently allocate limited financial resources and maximize desired outcomes. Yet, developing quantitative decision support under real-world constraints is challenging. Approaches that pair research teams and end-users are generally the most effective. However, co-development requires overcoming “hurdles” that can arise because of differences in the mental models of the co-development team. These include perceptions that: (1) scarce funds should be spent on action, not decision support; (2) quantitative approaches are only useful for simple decisions; (3) quantitative tools are inflexible and prescriptive black boxes; (4) available data are not good enough to support decisions; and (5) prioritization means admitting defeat. Here, we describe how we addressed these misperceptions during the development of a prototype resource allocation decision support tool for understanding trade-offs in U.S. endangered species recovery. We describe how acknowledging these hurdles and identifying solutions enabled us to progress with development. We believe that our experience can assist other applications of developing quantitative decision support for resource allocation.

Frontiers in Conservation Science↗

Estimation of dynamic geologic CO2 storage resources in the Illinois Basin, including effects of brine extraction, anisotropy, and hydrogeologic heterogeneity

Since the vast majority of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage resources in the United States are in deep saline aquifers, optimizing the use of these saline storage resources could be crucial for efficient development of geologic CO 2 storage (GCS) resources and basin- or larger-scale deployment of GCS in the country. Maximum CO 2 injection rates can be enhanced by extracting brine from the CO 2 storage unit. However, disposal of the extracted brine is both a technological and economic challenge. The lowest-cost option would likely be reinjection of the extracted brine into another formation above or below the CO 2 storage unit. Therefore, it is important to estimate brine injectivity as it will constrain the potential to increase CO 2 injectivity at an injection site that has access to multiple geologic storage units where either CO 2 or brine can be injected. Using a simulation-optimization framework, coupled with a non-isothermal, multiphase CO 2 -water-salt equation-of-state module, we developed a computationally efficient method for evaluating optimization of simultaneous CO 2 injection, brine extraction, and brine (re)injection at hypothetical injection sites deployed across a geologic basin. The Illinois basin is ideal for testing our methodology because it contains multiple geologic storage units with seals in between them to isolate injection of CO 2 in one unit from interfering with the injection of either brine or CO 2 in another unit above or below it. In addition, we investigated the relative effects of variation in key geologic parameters as well as two reservoir structures (hydrogeologic heterogeneity/anisotropy and homogeneity/isotropy) on CO 2 injectivities and enhancement of CO 2 injectivity through extracting brine. Results suggest that permeability, depth, and especially thickness of the storage unit could be the most influential parameters determining CO 2 injectivity. They also suggest that only injecting CO 2 into the storage unit with the greatest injectivity, enhancing that unit’s injectivity by extracting brine, and disposing of the produced brine in other suitable units could maximize total CO 2 injectivity in limited regions of the basin. At the majority of simulated injection sites, however, we found that injecting CO 2 into all of the accessible and suitable storage units was more likely to maximize the CO 2 storage resource.

Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana↗

Milkweed and floral resource availability for monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) in the United States

The global decline of pollinators, particularly insects, underscores the importance of enhanced monitoring of their populations and habitats. However, monitoring some pollinator habitat is challenging due to widespread species distributions and shifts in habitat requirements through seasons and life stages. The monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ), a migratory insect pollinator that breeds widely throughout North America, presents a unique case study for testing a sampling framework to overcome these challenges. Monarchs exhibit discrete resource needs across life stages (e.g., larval requirement for milkweed, adult requirement for floral nectar), utilizing many land use types across their extensive geographic range during breeding and migration seasons. The Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program (IMMP) uses a standardized protocol with a generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS) sampling design to gather spatially balanced and ecologically representative information on monarch habitats within the United States. The IMMP is applicable to various land use types and habitats used by breeding monarchs and may be extended to sites outside of the GRTS design to collect data on non-random sites of interest, such as legacy or conservation sites. Additionally, the IMMP’s modular design and publicly available training allows for broad participation, including involvement from community scientists. Here, we summarize habitat metrics (milkweed and floral resources) across 1,233 sites covering much of the monarch’s breeding range. We examine variation in milkweed density and floral resource availability on probabilistic (random) and non-probabilistic (convenience) samples and among land use types (site types). Additionally, we assess resource availability within core geographies for monarch breeding and migration, specifically within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Monarch Conservation Units (western, northern, and southern United States). Milkweed density, floral frequency, and floral richness were higher on non-random sites and in the North region. Among site types, milkweed density was highest on Rights-of-Way and Unclassified Grassland, while floral frequency was lowest on Rights-of-Way. The IMMP represents the first field-based habitat monitoring program of this scale for monarchs, yielding a robust dataset on monarchs and their habitats across their breeding range and offering a framework for surveying the habitat of insect species with diverse habitat requirements or widespread distributions.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution↗

Important features of Sustainable Aggregate Resource Management

Every society, whether developed, developing or in a phase of renewal following governmental change, requires stable, adequate and secure supplies of natural resources. In the latter case, there could be significant need for construction materials for rebuilding infrastructure, industrial capacity, and housing. It is essential that these large-volume materials be provided in a rational manner that maximizes their societal contribution and minimizes environmental impacts. We describe an approach to resource management based on the principles of sustainable developed. Sustainable Aggregate Resource Management offers a way of addressing the conflicting needs and interests of environmental, economic, and social systems. Sustainability is an ethics based concept that utilizes science and democratic processes to reach acceptable agreements and tradeoffs among interests, while acknowledging the fundamental importance of the environment and social goods. We discuss the features of sustainable aggregate resource management.

Geologija↗

Analytical group decision making in natural resources: Methodology and application

Group decision making is becoming increasingly important in natural resource management and associated scientific applications, because multiple values are treated coincidentally in time and space, multiple resource specialists are needed, and multiple stakeholders must be included in the decision process. Decades of social science research on decision making in groups have provided insights into the impediments to effective group processes and on techniques that can be applied in a group context. Nevertheless, little integration and few applications of these results have occurred in resource management decision processes, where formal groups are integral, either directly or indirectly. A group decision-making methodology is introduced as an effective approach for temporary, formal groups (e.g., workshops). It combines the following three components: (1) brainstorming to generate ideas; (2) the analytic hierarchy process to produce judgments, manage conflict, enable consensus, and plan for implementation; and (3) a discussion template (straw document). Resulting numerical assessments of alternative decision priorities can be analyzed statistically to indicate where group member agreement occurs and where priority values are significantly different. An application of this group process to fire research program development in a workshop setting indicates that the process helps focus group deliberations; mitigates groupthink, nondecision, and social loafing pitfalls; encourages individual interaction; identifies irrational judgments; and provides a large amount of useful quantitative information about group preferences. This approach can help facilitate scientific assessments and other decision-making processes in resource management.

Forest Science↗