DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology, Hydrogeology, and Groundwater Quality at North Carolina Zoo Groundwater Monitoring and Research Station Asheboro, North Carolina, 2007-2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology, Hydrogeology, and Groundwater Quality at North Carolina Zoo Groundwater Monitoring and Research Station Asheboro, North Carolina, 2007-2013 Geology, Hydrogeology, and Groundwater Quality at North Carolina Zoo Groundwater Monitoring and Research Station Asheboro, North Carolina, 2007-2013 By Shuying Wang Piedmont and Mountains Groundwater Resource Evaluation Program North Carolina Department of Environment Quality Division of Water Resources April 6, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................3 Background of the Study .........................................................................................................3 Objectives of the Study ...........................................................................................................4 Scope and Purpose of the Report ..........................................................................................4 Previous Studies .....................................................................................................................6 Description of the Study Area .................................................................................................7 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................9 Geologic Coring and Well Construction ...............................................................................9 Geologic coring ……...………………………………………………………...10 Well-numbering system ...……………………………………………………...10 Monitoring well installation ………………………………………………………..12 Borehole Geophysical Logging ...……………………………………………………...14 Petrographic Thin-Sections ………………………………………………………..14 Whole-Rock Geochemical Analyses ………………………………………………..14 Periodic Water-Level Measurements ………………………………………………..14 Slug Tests …..……………………………………………………………………………15 Pumping Tests …..……………………………………………………………………15 Water-Quality Sampling ...……………………………………………………………...17 Analyses of Water-Quality Data …...…………………………………………………...17 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND ROCK CHEMISTRY ……………………………………….18 Regional Geologic Setting ………………………………………………………………..18 Site Specific Geology ………………………………………………………………..19 Soil and geologic core description …..……………………………………………20 Regolith ………………………………………………………………..20 Transition zone ..………………………………………………………23 Bedrock ...……………………………………………………………...23 Geophysical logs and fractures in bedrock ………………………………..24 Microscopic characteristics of petrographic thin-sections ………………………27 Results of whole-rock geochemical analyses ………………………………………27 HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS ..………………………………………………29 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement ...……………………………………………...29 Occurrence ………………………………………………………………….…….29 Movement ...………………………………………………………………..…….30 Groundwater Levels ………………………………………………………………………..32 Groundwater Level Data ………………………………………………………..32 Response to Long Term Climate Change …..……………………………………33 Seasonal Fluctuation ………………………………………………………………..33 Regional Comparison …..…………………………………………………....34 II Aquifer Hydraulic Properties ………………………………………………………..35 Results of Slug Tests ………………………………………………………………..35 Results of Pumping Tests ………………………………………………………..36 GROUNDWATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS ……………………………………….....45 Sampling Results and Exceedances of NCAC 15A 2L Standards ………………………45 Field and Related Parameters Temperature ………………………………………......................................45 pH and alkalinity ………………………………………..........................46 Dissolved oxygen (DO) ………………………………………..............47 Total dissolved solids (TDS) ………………………………………..............47 Specific conductance (SC) ………………………………………..............48 Turbidity and suspended residue ………………………………………..48 Color ………………………………..………………………………………49 Total Organic Carbon and Fecal Coliform ………………………………..49 Major Ions ……………………………………......................................................49 Trace Metals ……………………………………......................................................52 Nutrients ……………………………………......................................................55 Cyanide, Volatile and Semivolatile Organics, Pesticides, and Herbicides ..55 Arsenic and Dissolved Radon ……………………………………..................56 Comparisons of Groundwater Quality among Three Components: Shallow Regolith, Transition Zone, and Bedrock ……………………………………..............................56 Comparisons of Groundwater Quality between Recharge Area and Discharge Area ..57 Comparisons of Site Groundwater Quality to Regional Groundwater Quality ………..57 Comparisons of Site Groundwater Quality to Rock Chemistry ………………………..60 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………..............................61 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………......................................................64 REFERENCES ……………………………………..................................................................65 APPENDICES ……………………………………..................................................................69 FIGURES 1. Locations of groundwater monitoring and research stations selected for investigations as part of the cooperative North Carolina Division of Water Quality and U.S. Geological Survey Piedmont-Mountains Resource Evaluation Program in North Carolina …………………5 2. Conceptual components of the Piedmont and Mountains groundwater system …………6 3. Location of the North Carolina Zoo groundwater monitoring and research station (NCZGMRS) within the Zoo’s property, Asheboro, NC …………………………………8 4. Site map of the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………..………..9 5. Example of core: Core sample from CH-2 at the NCZGMRS showing fracture characteristics and weathering conditions of the bedrock ………………………………..11 III 6. Portion of 1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina, indicating the approximate extent of the Uwharrie formation and location of study area ………………………………………..19 7. Portion of the geologic map of Seiders (1971) indicating the geology of NC Zoo area and locations of groundwater monitoring wells and coreholes at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………………………………………………………………..21 8. Cross section from CH-3 to CH-1, showing thicknesses of the regolith and transition zone, and depth to competent bedrock at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………..22 9. Types of metavolcanic rocks from geologic coreholes at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ..24 10. Tadpole diagrams and caliper logs from the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………..25 11. OTV images showing foliation and fractures in bedrock at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC.26 12. Plot of felsic metatuff and mafic metavolcanic rock samples from the NCZGMRS in QAP diagram ………………………………………………………………………………..28 13. Concentrations of Na 2O and K 2O in rock samples from the NCZGMRS vs. their averages in granite and gabbro ………………………………………………………………………..29 14. Periodic groundwater levels recorded in monitoring wells at the NCZGMRS from April 2007 through October 2013 ………………………………………………………………..31 15. Groundwater levels in regolith wells at the NCZGMRS from April 2007 to October 2013 ..34 16. Comparison of groundwater level changes from April 2007 to October 2013 in MW-3D at NCZGMRS in Asheboro, NC to changes in MW-N4D at the Upper Piedmont Research Station in Reidsville, NC ………………………………………………………………..35 17. Layout of monitoring wells and piezometers at cluster 2, NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ..37 18. A. Arithmetic time-drawdown and B. Semi-log time-drawdown in pumping well MW-2D at NCZGMRS, NC ………………………………………………………………………..39 19. Maximum drawdowns measured from the pumping test conducted at well cluster 2, NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………………………………..40 20. Drawdowns measured in onsite observation wells at NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………..41 21. Cooper-Jacob single well aquifer test at NCZGMRS well cluster 2, Asheboro, NC ………..42 22. Monitoring wells and well identifications at well cluster 1, NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ..44 23. pH levels measured in monitoring wells and Panther Creek at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, 24. NC……………………………………………………………………………………………46 25. Dissolved oxygen levels measured in monitoring wells and Panther Creek at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC …………………………………………………………..........47 26. SC and TDS levels measured in monitoring wells and Panther Creek at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC …………………………………………………………………………..........48 27. Piper Diagram showing major ionic composition of all samples from the NCZGMRS and five water supply wells nearby ………………………………………………………..51 28. Distributions and concentrations of iron, aluminum, manganese, and zinc in groundwater at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………..53 29. Correlation between concentration of total iron/aluminum and turbidity of groundwater at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………………………………..53 30. Correlation between concentration of total iron/aluminum and pH of groundwater at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………………………………..54 31. Correlation between manganese and dissolved oxygen or turbidity of groundwater at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………………………………………………..54 IV 32. Two lower sequences of the Carolina terrane and the sequence or the formation in which a groundwater monitoring and research station is installed ………………………………..58 33. Major ion distribution in groundwater samples from bedrock monitoring wells at the NCZGMRS and metavolcanic bedrock water supply wells surrounding the NCZGMRS and throughout Randolph County ………………………………………………………………..59 TABLES 1. Characteristics of monitoring wells and piezometers at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ..13 2. Groundwater level fluctuation data from the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………..32 3. Result of slug tests in wells at the NCZGMRS, Asheboro, NC ………………………..36
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strategic Plan 2012‐2017
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Asheville, North Carolina Field Office STRATEGIC PLAN 2012‐2017 THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WORKING WITH OTHERS, CONSERVES, PROTECTS, AND ENHANCES FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS AND THEIR HABITATS FOR THE CONTINUING BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND______________________________________3 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES_______________________________8 AFO STAFFING AND DIVERSITY PLAN____________________________________13 APPENDIX A: AFO STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITY WORK AREA MAP/GIS METHODOLOGY__18 MAP OF AFO STRATEGIC PLAN (FIGURE 2)_______________________________33 APPENDIX B: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES FOR WHICH AFO HAS RESPONSIBILITIES__________________________________________________________34 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES AND CITATIONS______________________________38 APPENDIX D: STAFF ACTION PLANS_________________________________________52 APPENDIX E: TABLE OF ACRONYMS_____________________________________79 2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Asheville Field Office (AFO), an Ecological Services facility, was established in the late 1970s. Forty-one counties make up the AFO’s core work area in western North Carolina, which includes many publicly owned conservation lands, especially in the higher elevations, as well as the metropolitan areas of Charlotte, Winston- Salem, and Asheville (Figure 1). This area primarily encompasses portions of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont physiographic provinces. In addition
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Groundwater Quality Based on Regional Geologic Setting in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces, North Carolina
    Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Aquifer Protection Section Characterization of Groundwater Quality Based on Regional Geologic Setting in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces, North Carolina Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5149 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front-cover photograph. Walnut Cove Overlook at mile marker 396 along the Blue Ridge Parkway, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Photograph by Jung-Jun Lin, Engineer, Tainan Hydraulics Laboratory, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. Used with permission. Back-cover photograph. Groundwater monitoring well cluster at the North Carolina Zoological Park Research Station, Randolph County, North Carolina. Photograph by Kristin McSwain, U.S. Geological Survey. Characterization of Groundwater Quality Based on Regional Geologic Setting in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces, North Carolina By Stephen L. Harden, Melinda J. Chapman, and Douglas A. Harned Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Aquifer Protection Section Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5149 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Albemarle County Biodiversity: a Report on Its History, Current Conditions, and Threats, with Strategies for Future Protection
    Albemarle County Biodiversity: A Report on its History, Current Conditions, and Threats, with Strategies for Future Protection Prepared by the Albemarle County Biodiversity Work Group October 2004 Dan Bieker - Ornithologist, Piedmont Virginia Community College Instructor Stephen Bowler, MS – Former Watershed Manager, Albemarle County; Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech Tom Dierauf, Master of Forestry Ruth Douglas, Ph.D. - Invasive Plant Coordinator, Virginia Native Plant Society; Professor Emerita, Piedmont Virginia Community College Michael Erwin, Ph.D. - Research Professor, University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences; Wildlife Biologist, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Chris French – Former Conservation Technician, Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District David Hannah, MS – Piedmont Environmental Council (former staff) John Hermsmeier - Director, Environmental Education Center Kenneth R. Lawless, Ph.D. - Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia Department of Materials Science & Engineering; Ornithologist, Field Botanist, Nature Photographer Tom Olivier, Ph.D. - Green Creek Paradigms, LLC G. Carleton Ray, Ph.D. - Research Professor, University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences John Scrivani, Ph.D. – Virginia Department of Forestry; Ivy Creek Foundation Board of Directors Charles E. Stevens - Field Botanist and Ornithologist; Virginia Botanical Associates Coordinated and Edited by Scott Clark - Senior Planner, Albemarle County Community Development Department 1 Acknowledgements
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Sediment Protection Efficiences for Increasing
    Article Estimated Sediment Protection Efficiences for Increasing Levels of Best Management Practices on Forest Harvests in the Piedmont, USA Richard Cristan 1, W. Michael Aust 2,*, M. Chad Bolding 2 and Scott M. Barrett 2 1 College of Agriculture, Communities, and the Environment, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA; [email protected] (M.C.B.); [email protected] (S.M.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-540-231-4523 Received: 9 October 2019; Accepted: 1 November 2019; Published: 7 November 2019 Abstract: In-stream watershed level evaluations confirm that application of recommended forestry best management practices (BMPs) can minimize sedimentation following management, while on-site erosion research shows that BMPs reduce erosion from individual forest operations, thus implying watershed-level sediment reductions. Assessments of forest operations and sediment have developed very few sediment delivery ratios (SDR). Linking BMP levels (low, standard recommendation, high) within specific forest operations to sedimentation could enable managers to evaluate BMP effects. Reported data regarding forest operations, erosion rates and SDR by forest operation, and BMP implementation levels were sufficient within the Piedmont region to allow approximations of sediment delivery and BMP efficiency. Existing United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service reports and published erosion and sediment research were used to comprise the 1 following method. For regional annual harvests, estimated sediment deliveries (Mg year− ) = annual harvest area (ha year 1) weighted average erosion rate from all forest operations (Mg ha 1 year 1) − × − − SDR (unitless ratio).
    [Show full text]
  • THE IMPORTANCE and DISTRIBUTION of HICKORY ACROSS VIRGINIA Anita K
    THE IMPORTANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HICKORY ACROSS VIRGINIA Anita K. Rose and James F. Rosson, Jr.' Abstract-The i~nportanceand role of hickory (Cur'yu spp.) in the Oak-Hickory forest coln~nunity complex has been studied over the last 70 years and questioned by several investigators. Until recently, there were virtually no species-level landscape-scale studies that accurately defined the role of hicko~yin these systetns. Data from the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, were used to describe the distribution and co~npositionalstatus of several hickory species across Virginia. Oak-Hickory was the predominant forest-type group in Virginia, covering 3 859 500 ha and accounting for 78430000 m' of basal area. A total of 1 880 live hickory trues (d.b.h. 2 12.7 cm) occurred and were measured on 5 1 percent of plots. Across all plots in the study, the average basal area of hickory was 1.2 m2 ha-'. On plots where hickory was present, basal area was 2.4 m2 ha-'. Mockernut (Cur-vutomentosu (Poir.) Nutt.) and pignut (C. glabra (Mill.) Sweet) hickory were the most prevalent hickory species measured. Mockernut (basal area = 0.5 m%a-') and pignut (basal area = 0.5 m' ha-') were tallied on 29 and 30 percent of plots, respectively. Shagbark (C. ovata (Mill.) K. Koch) and bitternut (C. cordifirrnis (Wangenh.) K. Koch) hickory were also tallied, but they occurred less frequently. Hickory ranked in the top three species, by importance value, on 25 percent of all plots. This study sheds new iight on the importance and species-level distribution of hickory in the Oak-Hickory forest complex at the landscape scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts in Brief on North Carolina. INSTITUTION North Carolina State Dept
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 431 683 SO 030 836 TITLE Student Sampler: Facts in Brief on North Carolina. INSTITUTION North Carolina State Dept. of Public Instruction, Raleigh. PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 52p. AVAILABLE FROM North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, 301 N. Wilmington St., Room 540, Raleigh, NC, 27601. PUB TYPE Guides Non-Classroom (055) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Elementary Education; Geography; Instructional Materials; *Social Studies; *State Government; *State History IDENTIFIERS *North Carolina ABSTRACT This information sampler was compiled to assist students in their study of North Carolina. Every year North Carolina students must complete a special project on their state. The sampler was designed to introduce students to the people, places, and events that have shaped North Carolina's history. Topics in the sampler include state symbols, people, economy, transportation, military installations, state government, travel and tourism, education, land, climate, North Carolina "firsts," geography of North Carolina (coastal plain, Piedmont, and mountains), famous North Carolinians, state flag, state seal, state song, maps, highlights from North Carolina history. Addresses to websites about North Carolina also are provided. (BT) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Student Sampler Facts in BriefonNorth Carolina ORY 20 1770 Af111. 1) PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY E. Br umbacK. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 .. Ca.) ............, . Nefacts U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION cn Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 00 er1"1-ffs documenthas been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Archaeology, Vol. 54
    North Carolina Archaeology Volume 54 2005 North Carolina Archaeology (formerly Southern Indian Studies) Published jointly by The North Carolina Archaeological Society, Inc. 109 East Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27601-2807 and The Research Laboratories of Archaeology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120 R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Editor Officers of the North Carolina Archaeological Society President: Tom Oakes, 113 Perkins Lane, Coinjock, NC 27923. Vice President: Terri Russ, P.O. Box 81, Hillsborough, NC 27278. Secretary: Linda Carnes-McNaughton, Dept of the Army, Public Works Business Center (AFZA-PW-E) (Carnes), Fort Bragg Garrison Command (ABN), Installation Management Agency, Fort Bragg, NC 28310. Treasurer: E. William Conen, 804 Kingswood Dr., Cary, NC 27513. Editor: R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Research Laboratories of Archaeology, CB 3120, Alumni Building, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120. Associate Editor (Newsletter): Dee Nelms, Office of State Archaeology, N.C. Division of Archives and History, 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4619. At-Large Members: Jeff Irwin, Dept of the Army, Public Works Business Center (AFZA-PW-E) (Irwin), Fort Bragg Garrison Command (ABN), Installation Management Agency, Fort Bragg, NC 28310. Matt Jorgenson, 2908 Golden Oak Court, Raleigh, NC 27603. Paul Mohler, Archaeology Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation, 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583. Brian Overton, Archaeology Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation, 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583. Archie Smith, Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site, 509 Town Creek Mound Road, Mt. Gilead, NC 27306. Ruth Wetmore, 110 Tree Haven, Brevard, NC 28712.
    [Show full text]
  • A Gap Analysis of Georgia
    A GAP ANALYSIS OF GEORGIA August 2003 Final Report A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Institute of Ecology and Georgia Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Gap Analysis Program A Geographic Approach to Planning for Biological Diversity U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Georgia Gap Analysis Project Final Report 8/10/2003 Elizabeth Kramer, Principal Investigator, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Michael J. Conroy, Co-Principal Investigator, Georgia Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Matthew J. Elliott, Project Manager, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Elizabeth A. Anderson, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 William R. Bumback, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Jeanne Epstein, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Contract Administration Through: Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Warnell School of Forest Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 Submitted by: Dr. Elizabeth A. Kramer Research Performed Under: Cooperative Agreement No. 1434-HQ-97-RU-01551 Research Work Order No. 44 ii Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory Institute of Ecology University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 U.S. Geological
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground-Water Flow, and Ground-Water Quality at the Lake Wheeler Road Research Station, 2001–03
    Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground-Water Flow, and Ground-Water Quality at the Lake Wheeler Road Research Station, 2001–03 North Carolina Piedmont and Mountains Resource Evaluation Program Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5166 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. Bedrock core sample from the Lake Wheeler Road research station, North Carolina (photograph by Richard E. Bolich, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Aquifer Protection Section). Back cover. A. Sampling activities, B. drilling (photographs by Charles C. Daniel III, U.S. Geological Survey, retired), and C. monitoring-well cluster 1 and data-collection platform (photograph by Brad A. Huffman, B U.S. Geological Survey) at the Lake Wheeler Road research station, North Carolina. A C Hydrogeologic Setting, Ground-Water Flow, and Ground-Water Quality at the Lake Wheeler Road Research Station, 2001–03 North Carolina Piedmont and Mountains Resource Evaluation Program By Melinda J. Chapman, Richard E. Bolich, and Brad A. Huffman Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5166 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 53. Inselbergs
    Part XI The Dilemma of Inselbergs I discussed erosional remnants in Chapter 9, but these were mostly of a different type of rock than the surroundings. And many of these are not associated with planation surfaces. For instance, Devils Tower is a basalt-like rock that is very likely the remnant of the conduit of a volcano left over after erosion of the surrounding High Plains. In this part, I will explore erosional remnants associated with planation surfaces or pediments, and that are of the same composition as the surrounding rock. The general term for these erosional remnants is an inselberg. A typical example of an inselberg is a granite tower above a planation surface on granite. Inselbergs are another one of the many mysteries of geomorphology. Chapter 53 Inselbergs Inselbergs rise above many planation surfaces as hills or mountains that for some reason failed to erode during the planing process.1 Any erosional mechanism proposed to plane the land must also account for erosional remnants. An inselberg is defined by the Glossary of Geology as, “A prominent isolated residual knob, hill, or small mountain…, usually smoothed and rounded that rises abruptly from an extensive lowland erosion surface in a hot, dry region (as in the desert of southern Africa and Arabia)…”2 Twidale also included mountain ranges and ridges in his definition.3 The word inselberg is a German word meaning a hill or an island jutting up from a flat sea, or more simply an “island mountain.”4 The hill or island represents the inselberg while the flat sea represents the planation surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Death at the Hands of Persons Unknown: the Geography of Lynching in the Deep South, 1882 to 1910
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1992 Death at the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Geography of Lynching in the Deep South, 1882 to 1910. Mary Elizabeth Hines Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Hines, Mary Elizabeth, "Death at the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Geography of Lynching in the Deep South, 1882 to 1910." (1992). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 5384. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/5384 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Physiographic Divisions and Differential Uplift in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge
    Physiographic Divisions and Differential Uplift in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge G£b :LOG-! A-L SURVEY P R O FC S SI ON A L PAPER Physiographic Divisions and Differential Uplift in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge ByJOHNT. HACK GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1265 A study of the topography and other surface features of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge, as related to late tectonic history UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1982 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Hack, John Tilton, 1913- Physiographic divisions and differential uplift in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge. (Geological Survey professional paper ; 1265) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs. no. I 19.16:1265 1. Physical geography-Piedmont (U.S.: Region) 2. Physical geography-Blue Ridge Mountains. 3. Isostasy. I. Title. II. Series. GB124.P53H33 551.4'3'0975 82-600079 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract _______ 1 Southern Blue Ridge province _. .____________ 27 Introduction ____ 1 Chilhowee-Walden Creek belt. ._____________ 28 Plan of report _ 2 Mountain highlands ______________ 28 Regional setting _ 6 Brevard zone and Hendersonville bulge __ 30 Piedmont Lowlands ___________________________________ 10 Intermontane basins ________ 32 Stream patterns and evidence for sedimentary overlap ____ 11 Mount Rogers area _____________ 34 Quantitative analysis of drainage patterns _________
    [Show full text]