John Ellis, Jacob E. Knight, Jeremy T. White, Michelle Sneed, Joseph D. Hughes, Jason K. Ramage, Christopher L. Braun, Andrew Teeple, Linzy K. Foster, Samuel H. Rendon, Justin T. Brandt
First posted January 13, 2023 For additional information, contact: Director, Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 1505 Ferguson Lane Austin, TX 78754-4501 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ot-waterContact Pubs Warehouse As a part of the Texas Water Development Board groundwater availability modeling program, the U.S. Geological Survey developed the Gulf Coast Land Subsidence and Groundwater-Flow model (hereinafter, the “GULF model”) and ensemble to simulate groundwater flow and land-surface subsidence in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system (the study area) in Texas from predevelopment (1897) through 2018. Since the publication of a previous groundwater model for the greater Houston area in 2012, there have been changes to the distribution of groundwater withdrawals and advances in modeling tools. To reflect these changes and to simulate more recent conditions, the GULF model was developed in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston and Fort Bend Subsidence Districts to provide an updated Groundwater Availability Model.Since the early 1900s, most of the groundwater withdrawals in the study area have been from three of the hydrogeologic units that compose the Gulf Coast aquifer system—the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and, more recently, from the Catahoula confining unit. Withdrawals from these hydrogeologic units are used for municipal supply, commercial and industrial use, and irrigation purposes. Withdrawals of large quantities of groundwater in the greater Houston area have caused widespread groundwater-level declines in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers of more than 300 feet (ft). Early development of the aquifer system, which began before 1900, resulted in nearly 50 percent of the eventual historical groundwater-level minimums having been reached as early as 1946 in some areas. These groundwater-level declines led to more than 9 ft of land-surface subsidence—historically in central and southeastern Harris County and Galveston County, but more recently in northern, northwestern, and western Harris County, Montgomery County, and northern Fort Bend County—from depressurization and compaction of clay and silt layers interbedded in the aquifer sediments.In a generalized conceptual model of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, water enters the groundwater system in topographically high outcrops of the hydrogeologic units in the northwestern part of the aquifer system. Groundwater that does not discharge to streams flows to intermediate and deep zones of the aquifer system southeastward of the outcrop areas where it is discharged by wells and by upward leakage in topographically low areas near the coast. The uppermost parts of the aquifer system, which include outcrop areas, are under water-table (unconfined) conditions where the groundwater is not confined under pressure. As depth increases in the aquifer system and interbedded clay and silt layers accumulate, water-table conditions evolve into confined co
{"title":"Hydrogeology, land-surface subsidence, and documentation of the Gulf Coast Land Subsidence and Groundwater-Flow (GULF) model, southeast Texas, 1897–2018","authors":"John Ellis, Jacob E. Knight, Jeremy T. White, Michelle Sneed, Joseph D. Hughes, Jason K. Ramage, Christopher L. Braun, Andrew Teeple, Linzy K. Foster, Samuel H. Rendon, Justin T. Brandt","doi":"10.3133/pp1877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1877","url":null,"abstract":"First posted January 13, 2023 For additional information, contact: Director, Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 1505 Ferguson Lane Austin, TX 78754-4501 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ot-waterContact Pubs Warehouse As a part of the Texas Water Development Board groundwater availability modeling program, the U.S. Geological Survey developed the Gulf Coast Land Subsidence and Groundwater-Flow model (hereinafter, the “GULF model”) and ensemble to simulate groundwater flow and land-surface subsidence in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system (the study area) in Texas from predevelopment (1897) through 2018. Since the publication of a previous groundwater model for the greater Houston area in 2012, there have been changes to the distribution of groundwater withdrawals and advances in modeling tools. To reflect these changes and to simulate more recent conditions, the GULF model was developed in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston and Fort Bend Subsidence Districts to provide an updated Groundwater Availability Model.Since the early 1900s, most of the groundwater withdrawals in the study area have been from three of the hydrogeologic units that compose the Gulf Coast aquifer system—the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and, more recently, from the Catahoula confining unit. Withdrawals from these hydrogeologic units are used for municipal supply, commercial and industrial use, and irrigation purposes. Withdrawals of large quantities of groundwater in the greater Houston area have caused widespread groundwater-level declines in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers of more than 300 feet (ft). Early development of the aquifer system, which began before 1900, resulted in nearly 50 percent of the eventual historical groundwater-level minimums having been reached as early as 1946 in some areas. These groundwater-level declines led to more than 9 ft of land-surface subsidence—historically in central and southeastern Harris County and Galveston County, but more recently in northern, northwestern, and western Harris County, Montgomery County, and northern Fort Bend County—from depressurization and compaction of clay and silt layers interbedded in the aquifer sediments.In a generalized conceptual model of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, water enters the groundwater system in topographically high outcrops of the hydrogeologic units in the northwestern part of the aquifer system. Groundwater that does not discharge to streams flows to intermediate and deep zones of the aquifer system southeastward of the outcrop areas where it is discharged by wells and by upward leakage in topographically low areas near the coast. The uppermost parts of the aquifer system, which include outcrop areas, are under water-table (unconfined) conditions where the groundwater is not confined under pressure. As depth increases in the aquifer system and interbedded clay and silt layers accumulate, water-table conditions evolve into confined co","PeriodicalId":498012,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Geological Survey professional paper","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136008728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
First posted April 25, 2023 For additional information, contact: Director,California Water Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey6000 J Street, Placer HallSacramento, California 95819 No abstract available.
欲了解更多信息，请联系:加州水科学中心主任。地质调查局，加州萨克拉门托Placer hall J街6000号，邮编95819
{"title":"Natural and anthropogenic (human-made) hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), in groundwater near a mapped plume, Hinkley, California","authors":"John A. Izbicki","doi":"10.3133/pp1885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1885","url":null,"abstract":"First posted April 25, 2023 For additional information, contact: Director,California Water Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey6000 J Street, Placer HallSacramento, California 95819 No abstract available.","PeriodicalId":498012,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Geological Survey professional paper","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135637461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karen Lund, John N. Aleinikoff, Christopher Holm-Denoma
First posted August 29, 2023 For additional information, contact: Center Director, Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyBox 25046, Mail Stop 973Denver, CO 80225Contact Pubs Warehouse The central Idaho metallogenic province hosts numerous mineral deposit types. These include Late Cretaceous precious-polymetallic vein deposits, amagmatic Paleocene–Eocene breccia-hosted gold-tungsten-antimony deposits, and Eocene mercury deposits in metasedimentary roof pendants and in Late Cretaceous granitoids. Hot-springs gold deposits in Eocene volcanic rocks are also included in the central Idaho province. New sensitive high mass-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP) uranium-lead (U-Pb) ages for igneous rocks and for detrital zircon analyses of metasedimentary rocks along with geologic mapping clarify the geologic framework of the mineral deposits. This framework includes (1) structural controls for regional distribution of mining districts, (2) progressive structural development of individual districts, (3) regional sedimentary facies and their control of metals associations resulting in regional belts, and (4) influences of the several regional magmatic events.In central Idaho, 15 mining districts form two clusters that are grouped about a 200-kilometer (km) long system of normal faults. The northwestern cluster is in the regional hanging wall west of large, west-side-down faults, and the mineral deposits are located along smaller faults and fractures that cut the regional hanging wall. The southeastern cluster is in the regional hanging wall east of a linked large east-side-down fault and along and controlled by related hanging wall faults. At the southern extent of the regional fault system, the Yellow Pine-Thunder Mountain districts span a nearly 24-km-wide, east-tilted crustal block of normal-fault dominoes, exposing original crustal depths from 5 to 10 km deep on the west in the Late Cretaceous to shallow-surface depths on the east in the Eocene.Ore deposition in the northwestern district cluster was primarily Late Cretaceous and related to Idaho batholith plutons with only a single deposit related to a small Eocene intrusion; in the southeastern cluster, most deposits were initiated in the Late Cretaceous but with varying manifestations of overprinted Eocene mineralization activity. In the Yellow Pine-Thunder Mountain districts at the southern extent of the southern cluster, several mineralizing pulses occurred during hanging-wall collapse, such that (1) early deposits were multiply overprinted and (2) deposit depths, ages, and structural characteristics change progressively eastward. Originally deep-seated western Yellow Pine district deposits are Late Cretaceous viscoplastic mesothermal veins overprinted by Paleocene and Eocene breccia-hosted epithermal deposits. Central Yellow Pine district deposits contain early deeper vein systems but are primarily Paleocene and Eocene breccia-hosted epithermal deposits in Late Cre
{"title":"Roles of regional structures and country-rock facies in defining mineral belts in central Idaho mineral province with detail for Yellow Pine and Thunder Mountain mining districts","authors":"Karen Lund, John N. Aleinikoff, Christopher Holm-Denoma","doi":"10.3133/pp1884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1884","url":null,"abstract":"First posted August 29, 2023 For additional information, contact: Center Director, Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyBox 25046, Mail Stop 973Denver, CO 80225Contact Pubs Warehouse The central Idaho metallogenic province hosts numerous mineral deposit types. These include Late Cretaceous precious-polymetallic vein deposits, amagmatic Paleocene–Eocene breccia-hosted gold-tungsten-antimony deposits, and Eocene mercury deposits in metasedimentary roof pendants and in Late Cretaceous granitoids. Hot-springs gold deposits in Eocene volcanic rocks are also included in the central Idaho province. New sensitive high mass-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP) uranium-lead (U-Pb) ages for igneous rocks and for detrital zircon analyses of metasedimentary rocks along with geologic mapping clarify the geologic framework of the mineral deposits. This framework includes (1) structural controls for regional distribution of mining districts, (2) progressive structural development of individual districts, (3) regional sedimentary facies and their control of metals associations resulting in regional belts, and (4) influences of the several regional magmatic events.In central Idaho, 15 mining districts form two clusters that are grouped about a 200-kilometer (km) long system of normal faults. The northwestern cluster is in the regional hanging wall west of large, west-side-down faults, and the mineral deposits are located along smaller faults and fractures that cut the regional hanging wall. The southeastern cluster is in the regional hanging wall east of a linked large east-side-down fault and along and controlled by related hanging wall faults. At the southern extent of the regional fault system, the Yellow Pine-Thunder Mountain districts span a nearly 24-km-wide, east-tilted crustal block of normal-fault dominoes, exposing original crustal depths from 5 to 10 km deep on the west in the Late Cretaceous to shallow-surface depths on the east in the Eocene.Ore deposition in the northwestern district cluster was primarily Late Cretaceous and related to Idaho batholith plutons with only a single deposit related to a small Eocene intrusion; in the southeastern cluster, most deposits were initiated in the Late Cretaceous but with varying manifestations of overprinted Eocene mineralization activity. In the Yellow Pine-Thunder Mountain districts at the southern extent of the southern cluster, several mineralizing pulses occurred during hanging-wall collapse, such that (1) early deposits were multiply overprinted and (2) deposit depths, ages, and structural characteristics change progressively eastward. Originally deep-seated western Yellow Pine district deposits are Late Cretaceous viscoplastic mesothermal veins overprinted by Paleocene and Eocene breccia-hosted epithermal deposits. Central Yellow Pine district deposits contain early deeper vein systems but are primarily Paleocene and Eocene breccia-hosted epithermal deposits in Late Cre","PeriodicalId":498012,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Geological Survey professional paper","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135003768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：