Results for “Surveying and Mapping” — Page 36

USGS2014

Coal assessments and coal research in the Appalachian basin

Coal is one of our most important domestic energy resources, producing 37 percent of the Nation’s electricity in 2012. Coal mining within the Appalachian basin has been ongoing for three centuries and, cumulatively, the basin is the most productive coal region in the United States. In 2012, only the Powder River basin produced more coal than the Appalachian basin. Coal is the most important mined product within the basin, and research on the quality and quantity of the coal is one of the primary functions of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the State geological surveys of Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The USGS and the State geological surveys historically have worked together on coal research and assessment projects to achieve mutually beneficial science goals. The 2000 USGS coal resource assessment of the Appalachian basin (Northern and Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions Assessment Team, 2001, USGS Professional Paper 1625–C) was done in close collaboration with scientists of the State geological surveys of Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Five of the top-producing coal beds and coal zones within the basin were quantitatively assessed, and results show that ample coal resources remain. Coal quality, not coal quantity, is the principal driver for coal production and use within the basin and will be for the foreseeable future. Cumulative coalbed-methane (CBM) production within the Appalachian basin has been about 2.3 trillion cubic feet (TCF), and most of the production has come from Alabama and Virginia (Milici and Polyak, this volume, chap. G.2). Significant CBM resources occur throughout the coal-producing States in the Appalachian basin, and commercial production is possible in all. State geological surveys are concentrating on mapping and correlating coal beds and coal zones and studying CBM potential and production. Both State surveys and the USGS are researching the potential for carbon dioxide sequestration in unmined coal beds and other geologic reservoirs. In addition, the State geological surveys continue their long-term collaboration with the USGS and provide coal stratigraphic data to the National Coal Resources Data System (NCRDS).

Appalachian basin↗

USGS2019

Status of three-dimensional geological mapping and modeling activities in the U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), created in 1879, is the national geological survey for the United States and the sole science agency within its cabinet-level bureau, the Department of the Interior. The USGS has a broad mission, including: serving the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect quality of life. USGS scientific activities are organized around major topics, or Mission Areas, aligned with distinct science themes; three-dimensional (3-D) modelling typically supports research and project work within a specific Mission Area. The vastness, diversity, and complexity of the geological landscape of the United States has resulted in the creation of 3-D geological framework models that are local or regional in scale; a National-scale 3-D model is only beginning to evolve. This paper summarizes 3-D geological modeling at the USGS and does not discuss 3-D modeling that is conducted by other Federal agencies, state geological surveys, academia, or industry within the U.S. This paper updates and expands upon a similar status report of USGS 3-D modeling activities of Jacobsen et al. (2011).

Report↗

USGS1988

Maps showing anomalous concentrations of lead, molybdenum, bismuth, and tungsten in stream sediment and heavy-mineral concentrate from parts of the Ajo and Lukeville 1 degree by 2 degrees quadrangles, Arizona

These maps are part of a folio of maps of the Ajo and Lukeville 1° x 2° quadrangles, Arizona, prepared under the Conterminous United States Mineral Assessment Program. Other publications in this folio include U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Maps MF-1834-A, 1834–B, and 1834–C and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports 82–419, 82–599, and 83–734. Open-File Reports 82–419 and 83–734 constitute the basic data and initial interpretation on which this discussion is predicated. Open-File Report 82–599 is an aeromagnetic map.

Arizona↗

USGS2010

Mapping elevations of tidal wetland restoration sites in San Francisco Bay: Comparing accuracy of aerial lidar with a singlebeam echosounder

The southern edge of San Francisco Bay is surrounded by former salt evaporation ponds, where tidal flow has been restricted since the mid to late 1890s. These ponds are now the focus of a large wetland restoration project, and accurate measurement of current pond bathymetry and adjacent mud flats has been critical to restoration planning. Aerial light detection and ranging (lidar) has become a tool for mapping surface elevations, but its accuracy had rarely been assessed for wetland habitats. We used a singlebeam echosounder system we developed for surveying shallow wetlands to map submerged pond bathymetry in January of 2004 and compared those results with aerial lidar surveys in two ponds that were dry in May of 2004. From those data sets, we compared elevations for 5164 (Pond E9, 154 ha) and 2628 (Pond E14, 69 ha) echosounder and lidar points within a 0.375-m radius of each other (0.750-m diameter lidar spot size). We found that mean elevations of the lidar points were lower than the echosounder results by 5 ?? 0.1 cm in Pond E9 and 2 ?? 0.2 cm in Pond E14. Only a few points (5% in Pond E9, 2% in Pond E14) differed by more than 20 cm, and some of these values may be explained by residual water in the ponds during the lidar survey or elevation changes that occurred between surveys. Our results suggest that aerial lidar may be a very accurate and rapid way to assess terrain elevations for wetland restoration projects. ?? 2010 Coastal Education and Research Foundation.

Journal of Coastal Research↗

USGS2006

Mapping ground water in three dimensions: An analysis of airborne geophysical surveys of the Upper San Pedro River Basin, Cochise County, southeastern Arizona

This report summarizes the results of two airborne geophysical surveys conducted in the upper San Pedro Valley of southeastern Arizona in 1997 and 1999. The combined surveys cover about 1,000 square kilometers and extend from the Huachuca Mountains on the west to the Mule Mountains and Tombstone Hills on the east and from north of the Babocomari River to near the Mexican border on the south. The surveys included the acquisition of high-resolution magnetic data, which were used to map depth to the crystalline basement rocks underlying the sediments filling the basin. The magnetic inversion results show a complex basement morphology, with sediment thickness in the center of the valley ranging from ~237 meters beneath the city of Sierra Vista to ~1,500 meters beneath Huachuca City and the Palominas area near the Mexican border. The surveys also included acquisition of 60-channel time-domain electromagnetic (EM) data. Extensive quality analyses of these data, including inversion to conductivity vs. depth (conductivity-depth-transform or CDT) profiles and comparisons with electrical well logs, show that the electrical conductor mapped represents the subsurface water-bearing sediments throughout most of the basin. In a few places (notably the mouth of Huachuca Canyon), the reported water table lies above where the electrical conductor places it. These exceptions appear to be due to a combination of outdated water-table information, significant horizontal displacement between the wells and the CDT profiles, and a subtle calibration issue with the CDT algorithm apparent only in areas of highly resistive (very dry) overburden. These occasional disparities appear in less than 5 percent of the surveyed area. Observations show, however, that wells drilled in the thick unsaturated zone along the Huachuca Mountain front eventually intersect water, at which point the water rapidly rises high into the unsaturated zone within the wellbore. This rising of water in a wellbore implies some sort of confinement below the thick unsaturated zone, a confinement that is not identified in the available literature. Occasional disparities notwithstanding, maps of the electrical conductor derived from the airborne EM system provide a synoptic view of the presence of water underlying the upper San Pedro Valley, including its three-dimensional distribution. The EM data even show faults previously only inferred from geologic mapping. The magnetic and electromagnetic data together appear to show the thickness of the sediments, the water in the saturated sediments down to a maximum of about 400 meters depth, and even places where the main ground-water body is not in direct contact with the San Pedro River. However, the geophysical data cannot reveal anything directly about hydraulic conductivity or ground-water flow. Estimating these characteristics requires new hydraulic modeling based in part on this report. One concern to reviewers of this report is the effect that clays may have on the electrical conductor mapped with the airborne geophysical system. Although the water in the basin is unusually conductive, averaging 338 microsiemens per centimeter, reasoning cited below suggests that the contribution of clays to the overall conductivity would be relatively small. Basic principles of sedimentary geology suggest that silts and clays should dominate the center of the basin, while sands and gravels would tend to dominate the margins. Although clay content may increase the amplitude of the observed electrical conductors somewhat, it will not affect the depths to the conductor derived from depth inversions. Further, fine-grained sediments generally have higher porosity and tend to lie toward a basin center, a fact in general agreement with the observed geophysical data.

Arizona↗

USGS2016

Illuminating wildfire erosion and deposition patterns with repeat terrestrial lidar

Erosion following a wildfire is much greater than background erosion in forests because of wildfire-induced changes to soil erodibility and water infiltration. While many previous studies have documented post-wildfire erosion with point and small plot-scale measurements, the spatial distribution of post-fire erosion patterns at the watershed scale remains largely unexplored. In this study lidar surveys were collected periodically in a small, first-order drainage basin over a period of 2 years following a wildfire. The study site was relatively steep with slopes ranging from 17° to > 30°. During the study period, several different types of rain storms occurred on the site including low-intensity frontal storms (2.4 mm h −1 ) and high-intensity convective thunderstorms (79 mm h −1 ). These storms were the dominant drivers of erosion. Erosion resulting from dry ravel and debris flows was notably absent at the site. Successive lidar surveys were subtracted from one another to obtain digital maps of topographic change between surveys. The results show an evolution in geomorphic response, such that the erosional response after rain storms was strongly influenced by the previous erosional events and pre-fire site morphology. Hillslope and channel roughness increased over time, and the watershed armored as coarse cobbles and boulders were exposed. The erosional response was spatially nonuniform; shallow erosion from hillslopes (87% of the study area) contributed 3 times more sediment volume than erosion from convergent areas (13% of the study area). However, the total normalized erosion depth (volume/area) was highest in convergent areas. From a detailed understanding of the spatial locations of erosion, we made inferences regarding the processes driving erosion. It appears that hillslope erosion is controlled by rain splash (for detachment) and overland flow (for transport and quasi-channelized erosion), with the sites of highest erosion corresponding to locations with the lowest roughness. By contrast, in convergent areas we found erosion caused by overland flow. Soil erosion was locally interrupted by immobile objects such as boulders, bedrock, or tree trunks, resulting in a patchy erosion network with increasing roughness over time.

Colorado↗

USGS2005

Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States: Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia

The growth in the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has highlighted the need for regional and national digital geologic maps attributed with age and lithology information. Such maps can be conveniently used to generate derivative maps for purposes including mineral-resource assessment, metallogenic studies, tectonic studies, and environmental research. This Open-File Report is a preliminary version of part of a series of integrated state geologic map databases that cover the entire United States. The only national-scale digital geologic maps that portray most or all of the United States for the conterminous U.S. are the digital version of the King and Beikman (1974a, b) map at a scale of 1:2,500,000, as digitized by Schruben and others (1994) and the generalized digital version (Reed and Bush, 2004) of the Geologic Map of North America (Reed and others, 2005a, b) compiled at a scale of 1:5,000,000. The present series of maps is intended to provide the next step in increased detail. State geologic maps that range in scale from 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000 are available for most of the country, and digital versions of these state maps are the basis for this product. In a few cases, new digital compilations were prepared (e.g. Ohio, South Carloina, South Dakota) or existing paper maps were digitized (e.g. Kentucky, Texas). Also as part of this series, new regional maps for Alaska and Hawaii are being compiled and ultimately new state maps will be produced. The digital geologic maps are presented in standardized formats as ARC/INFO export (.e00) files and as ArcView shape (.shp) files. Accompanying these spatial databases are a set of five supplemental attribute tables that relate the map units to detailed lithologic and age information. The maps for the CONUS have been fitted to a common set of state boundaries based on the 1:100,000 topographic map series of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). When the individual state maps are merged, the combined attribute tables can be used directly with the merged maps to make derivative maps. No attempt has been made to reconcile differences in mapped geology across state lines.

Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia↗

USGS2005

Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

The growth in the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has highlighted the need for regional and national digital geologic maps attributed with age and lithology information. Such maps can be conveniently used to generate derivative maps for purposes including mineral-resource assessment, metallogenic studies, tectonic studies, and environmental research. This Open-File Report is a preliminary version of part of a series of integrated state geologic map databases that cover the entire United States. The only national-scale digital geologic maps that portray most or all of the United States for the conterminous U.S. are the digital version of the King and Beikman (1974a, b) map at a scale of 1:2,500,000, as digitized by Schruben and others (1994) and the generalized digital version (Reed and Bush, 2004) of the Geologic Map of North America (Reed and others, 2005a, b) compiled at a scale of 1:5,000,000. The present series of maps is intended to provide the next step in increased detail. State geologic maps that range in scale from 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000 are available for most of the country, and digital versions of these state maps are the basis for this product. In a few cases, new digital compilations were prepared (e.g. Ohio, South Carloina, South Dakota) or existing paper maps were digitized (e.g. Kentucky, Texas). Also as part of this series, new regional maps for Alaska and Hawaii are being compiled and ultimately new state maps will be produced. The digital geologic maps are presented in standardized formats as ARC/INFO export (.e00) files and as ArcView shape (.shp) files. Accompanying these spatial databases are a set of five supplemental attribute tables that relate the map units to detailed lithologic and age information. The maps for the CONUS have been fitted to a common set of state boundaries based on the 1:100,000 topographic map series of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). When the individual state maps are merged, the combined attribute tables can be used directly with the merged maps to make derivative maps. No attempt has been made to reconcile differences in mapped geology across state lines.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2009

Geologic Map of The Volcanoes Quadrangle, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico

This geologic map, in support of the U.S. Geological Survey Middle Rio Grande Basin Geologic Mapping Project, shows the spatial distribution of surficial deposits, lava flows, and related sediments of the Albuquerque volcanoes, upper Santa Fe Group sediments, faults, and fault-related structural features. These deposits are on, along, and beneath the Llano de Albuquerque (West Mesa) west of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Some of these deposits are in the western part of Petroglyph National Monument. Artificial fill deposits are mapped chiefly beneath and near the City of Albuquerque Soil Amendment Facility and the Double Eagle II Airport. Alluvial deposits were mapped in and along stream channels, beneath terrace surfaces, and on the Llano de Albuquerque and its adjacent hill slopes. Deposits composed of alluvium and colluvium are also mapped on hill slopes. Wedge-shaped deposits composed chiefly of sandy sheetwash deposits, eolian sand, and intercalated calcic soils have formed on the downthrown-sides of faults. Deposits of active and inactive eolian sand and sandy sheetwash deposits mantle the Llano de Albuquerque. Lava flows and related sediments of the Albuquerque volcanoes were mapped near the southeast corner of the map area. They include eleven young lava flow units and, where discernable, associated vent and near-vent pyroclastic deposits associated with cinder cones. Upper Santa Fe Group sediments are chiefly fluvial in origin, and are well exposed near the western boundary of the map area. From youngest to oldest they include a gravel unit, pebbly sand unit, tan sand and mud unit, tan sand unit, tan sand and clay unit, and silty sand unit. Undivided upper Santa Fe Group sediments are mapped in the eastern part of the map area. Faults were identified on the basis of surface expression determined from field mapping and interpretation of aeromagnetic data where concealed beneath surficial deposits. Fault-related structural features are exposed and were mapped near the western boundary of the map area.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS1984

REMOTE-SENSING MINERAL DISCOVERIES IN THE MOJAVE DESERT OF CALIFORNIA.

As a result of remote sensing studies in the Mojave Desert of California three previously unknown stockwork molybdenum systems have been discovered. It is not known if economic deposits of molybdenum and associated minerals occur in these areas; there is, however, sufficient data to judge that these areas are worthy of further exploration. The purpose of this paper is to present case histories of two of these discoveries. These discoveries have been made from laboratory analyses of Landsat multispectral scanner images to map limonitic materials and from field reconnaissance to determine if the limonite is due to hydrothermal alteration. In those areas that seemed most promising, airborne spectrometer surveys were employed to mapped Al-OH minerals, and audio-magnetotelluric (AMT) and telluric-traversing surveys were performed to obtain information at depth.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2002

Effects of management practices on wetland birds: Marsh Wren

Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on wetland birds were summarized from information in more than 500 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the BBS may not capture the presence of elusive waterbird species, the BBS is a standardized survey and the range maps, in many cases, represent the most consistent information available on species’ distributions. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The section on brood parasitism summarizes information on intra- and interspecific parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of wetland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below. This report has been downloaded from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center WorldWide Web site, www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm. Please direct comments and suggestions to Douglas H. Johnson, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 8711 37th Street SE, Jamestown, North Dakota 58401; telephone: 701- 253-5539; fax: 701-253-5553; e-mail: Douglas_H_Johnson@usgs.gov.

Report↗

USGS2003

The National Map: from geography to mapping and back again

When the means of production for national base mapping were capital intensive, required large production facilities, and had ill-defined markets, Federal Government mapping agencies were the primary providers of the spatial data needed for economic development, environmental management, and national defense. With desktop geographic information systems now ubiquitous, source data available as a commodity from private industry, and the realization that many complex problems faced by society need far more and different kinds of spatial data for their solutions, national mapping organizations must realign their business strategies to meet growing demand and anticipate the needs of a rapidly changing geographic information environment. The National Map of the United States builds on a sound historic foundation of describing and monitoring the land surface and adds a focused effort to produce improved understanding, modeling, and prediction of land-surface change. These added dimensions bring to bear a broader spectrum of geographic science to address extant and emerging issues. Within the overarching construct of The National Map, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is making a transition from data collector to guarantor of national data completeness; from producing paper maps to supporting an online, seamless, integrated database; and from simply describing the Nation’s landscape to linking these descriptions with increased scientific understanding. Implementing the full spectrum of geographic science addresses a myriad of public policy issues, including land and natural resource management, recreation, urban growth, human health, and emergency planning, response, and recovery. Neither these issues nor the science and technologies needed to deal with them are static. A robust research agenda is needed to understand these changes and realize The National Map vision. Initial successes have been achieved. These accomplishments demonstrate the utility of The National Map to the Nation and give confidence in evolving its future applications.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗

USGS2002

Effects of management practices on wetland birds: American Avocet

Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on wetland birds were summarized from information in more than 500 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the BBS may not capture the presence of elusive waterbird species, the BBS is a standardized survey and the range maps, in many cases, represent the most consistent information available on species’ distributions. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The section on brood parasitism summarizes information on intra- and interspecific parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of wetland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below.

Report↗

USGS2002

Effects of management practices on wetland birds: Yellow Rail

Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on wetland birds were summarized from information in more than 500 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the BBS may not capture the presence of elusive waterbird species, the BBS is a standardized survey and the range maps, in many cases, represent the most consistent information available on species’ distributions. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The section on brood parasitism summarizes information on intra- and interspecific parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of wetland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below.

Report↗

USGS2002

Effects of management practices on wetland birds: Black tern

Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on wetland birds were summarized from information in more than 500 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the BBS may not capture the presence of elusive waterbird species, the BBS is a standardized survey and the range maps, in many cases, represent the most consistent information available on species’ distributions. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The section on brood parasitism summarizes information on intra- and interspecific parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of grassland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below.

Report↗

USGS2002

Effects of management practices on wetland birds: Virginia rail

Information on the habitat requirements and effects of habitat management on wetland birds were summarized from information in more than 500 published and unpublished papers. A range map is provided to indicate the relative densities of the species in North America, based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Although the BBS may not capture the presence of elusive waterbird species, the BBS is a standardized survey and the range maps, in many cases, represent the most consistent information available on species’ distributions. Although birds frequently are observed outside the breeding range indicated, the maps are intended to show areas where managers might concentrate their attention. It may be ineffectual to manage habitat at a site for a species that rarely occurs in an area. The species account begins with a brief capsule statement, which provides the fundamental components or keys to management for the species. A section on breeding range outlines the current breeding distribution of the species in North America, including areas that could not be mapped using BBS data. The suitable habitat section describes the breeding habitat and occasionally microhabitat characteristics of the species, especially those habitats that occur in the Great Plains. Details on habitat and microhabitat requirements often provide clues to how a species will respond to a particular management practice. A table near the end of the account complements the section on suitable habitat, and lists the specific habitat characteristics for the species by individual studies. The area requirements section provides details on territory and home range sizes, minimum area requirements, and the effects of patch size, edges, and other landscape and habitat features on abundance and productivity. It may be futile to manage a small block of suitable habitat for a species that has minimum area requirements that are larger than the area being managed. The section on brood parasitism summarizes information on intra- and interspecific parasitism, host responses to parasitism, and factors that influence parasitism, such as nest concealment and host density. The impact of management depends, in part, upon a species’ nesting phenology and biology. The section on breeding-season phenology and site fidelity includes details on spring arrival and fall departure for migratory populations in the Great Plains, peak breeding periods, the tendency to renest after nest failure or success, and the propensity to return to a previous breeding site. The duration and timing of breeding varies among regions and years. Species’ response to management summarizes the current knowledge and major findings in the literature on the effects of different management practices on the species. The section on management recommendations complements the previous section and summarizes recommendations for habitat management provided in the literature. The literature cited contains references to published and unpublished literature on the management effects and habitat requirements of the species. This section is not meant to be a complete bibliography; a searchable, annotated bibliography of published and unpublished papers dealing with habitat needs of wetland birds and their responses to habitat management is posted at the Web site mentioned below.

Report↗

USGS1994

Map showing seismicity and sandblows in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri

This is one of a series of five seismotectic maps of the seismically active New Madrid, Missouri, area (table 1; Wheeler and others, 1992). The map area centers near the sites of three great earthquakes that struck during the winter of 1811-12 (Fuller, 1912; Nuttli, 1973). These earthquakes and continuing subsequent seismicity rank the New Madrid area with Cherlevoix, Quebec, as the two most seismically active areas in North America east of the Rocky Mountains. The threat posed by New Madrid seismicity to the central United States makes the area the focus of many investigations (for examples, Heyl and McKeown, 1978; McKeown and Pakiser, 1982; Algemissen and Hopper, 1984; Hamilton and Johnston, 1990; Applied Technology Council, 1991; Johnston and others, 1992). The map area includes the most intense seismic activity in the New Madrid region. A seismotectic map shows some of the geologic and geophysical information needed to assess seismic hazard (Hadley and Devine, 1974; Pavoni, 1985). A previous seismotectonic map of the central Mississippi River valley (Heyl and McKeown, 1978) has had wide use for planning field surveys, as a base map for plotting data collected during single investigations, and for compiling a range of information. Since 1978 numcrous researchers have greatly advanced our knowledge of the geology and geophysics of the central Mississippi Valley. The New Madrid seismotectonic map folio updates approximately the south-central sixth of the central Mississippi Valley seismotectonic map of Heyl and McKeown (1978).

Missouri↗

USGS1992

Implementation of softcopy photogrammetric workstations at the US Geological Survey

The US Geological Survey has provided the Nation with primary quadrangle maps and map products for the last 50 years. The Survey recently completed initial coverage of the conterminous United States and Hawaii at 1:24 000 scale. In Alaska, complete coverage exists at 1:63 360 scale. Effort is underway to build a National Digital Cartographic Data Base (NDCDB) composed of the digital representation of these and other map series. In addition the Survey plans to meet the demand for more current and complete data through the development and promotion of spatial data standards in cooperation with other Federal, State, local and private organizations. -from Authors

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗