Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Planning”

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 847 records · Page 47Linked to original sources
USGS1967

Hydrologic effects of area B flood control plan on urbanization of Dade County, Florida

Swampy low land (Area B) that fringes the Everglades west of Metropolitan Miami, Florida (Area A) probably will be urbanized in the future. Area B will be protected from flooding by huge pumps that will pump water westward from Area B over a levee system into Conservation Area 3B. The total capacity of the pumps will be about 13,400 cubic feet per second which is sufficient to lower water levels 2 inches per day in the 203 square miles of Area B. As this capacity is about equal to the highest gravity-flow discharge to the ocean through existing canals of the Miami area, a great potential. will exist, not only for control of floods, but also for beneficial control and management of a major segment of the water resources in southeastern Florida.

Florida↗
USGS1982

Developing a state water plan: Ground-water conditions in Utah, spring of 1982

This is the nineteenth in a series of annual reports that describe ground-water conditions in Utah. Reports in this series, published cooperatively by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Utah Division of Water Resources, provide data to enable interested parties to keep abreast of changing ground-water conditions. This report, like the others in the series, contains information on well construction, ground-water withdrawals from wells, water-level changes, and related changes in precipitation and streamflow. Supplementary data such as graphs showing chemical quality of water and maps showing ground-water level contours are included in reports of this series only for those years or areas for which applicable data are available and are important to a discussion of changing ground-water conditions. This report includes individual discussions of selected major areas of ground-water development in the State for the calendar year 1981. Water-level fluctuations, however, are described for the periiod spring 1981 to spring 1982. Much of the data used in this report were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Division of Water Rights, Utah Department of Natural Resources.

Utah↗
USGS2010

Surface water discharge and salinity monitoring of coastal estuaries in Everglades National Park, USA, in support of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Discharge and salinity were measured along the southwest and the southeast coast of Florida in Everglades National Park (ENP) within several rivers and creeks from 1996 through 2008. Data were collected using hydro-acoustic instruments and continuous water-quality monitors at fixed monitoring stations. Water flowed through ENP within two distinct drainage basins; specifically, Shark Slough and Taylor Slough. Discharge to the southwest coast through Shark Slough was substantially larger than discharge to the southeast coast through Taylor Slough. Correlation analysis between coastal flows and regulated flows at water-management structures upstream from ENP suggests rainfall has a larger impact on discharge through Shark Slough than releases from the S-12 water management structures. In contrast, flow releases from water management structures upstream from Taylor Slough appear to be more closely related to discharge along the southeast coast. Salinity varied within a wide range (0 to 50 parts per thousand) along both coastlines. Periods of hypersalinity were greater along the southeast coast due to shallow compartmentalized basins within Florida Bay, which restrict circulation.

Florida↗
USGS1982

Habitat models for land-use planning: assumptions and strategies for development

Wildlife managers have long recognized that management goals must be constrained by the availability and suitability of habitat. This recognition, combined with ever increasing land development pressures, has resulted in environmental legislation emphasizing systematic approaches to collection and analysis of habitat information. Wildlife planners have responded with a variety of approached to the development of models that quantify habitat requirements. The use of habitat models in wildlife management is certainly not a new concept. Early models attempted to relate habitat quality and quantity as defined by various life requisites (Trippensee 1948). Conceptually, these early approaches are identical to many contemporary efforts directed at modeling habitat. This paper has two objectives related to contemporary habitat modeling approaches. The first objective is to characterize the assumptions and limitations inherent to operational habitat models. Various approaches to habitat modeling, some of which will be discussed at this conference, are described in their own terminology-which tends to obscure the fact that they have common ideals and are subject to the same sets of limitations. The second objective of this paper is to describe a strategy for development of habitat models consistent with these potential limitations. There seems to be two divergent perspectives on operational habitat models. The first is an ideal perspective, which views operational habitat models with skepticism because the current state of habitat knowledge is limited. The second is a pragmatic perspective, which recognizes that available habitat information, no matter how incomplete, can be used to improve the credibility of a land-use decision. The strategy outlined in this paper is directed toward the latter perspective but may help to bridge the gap between the pragmatic and ideal.

Book↗
USGS1985

Information needs for natural fire management planning

The development and implementation of an effective natural fire management program require a clear definition of goals and objectives, an ever-expanding information base, and effective program evaluation. Examples are given from Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

Book↗