Search USGSSearch

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Federation Proceedings”

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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

Mineral resource management of the Outer Continental Shelf : leasing procedures, evaluation of resources, and supervision of production operations on leased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf

An important function of the Geological Survey is the evaluation and management of the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, particularly with respect to oil and gas, salt, and sulfur. Production of oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States has increased substantially over the past 20 years and represents an increasing percentage of total United States production. As discovery of major onshore production of oil and gas has become more difficult, the search has moved into the surrounding waters where submerged sedimentary formations are conducive to the accumulation of oil and gas. Increased energy demands of recent years have accelerated the pace of offshore operations with a corresponding improvement in technology as exploration and development have proceeded farther from shore and into deeper water. While improved technology and enforcement of more stringent regulations have made offshore operations safer, it is unrealistic to believe that completely accident-free operations can ever be achieved. Only slightly more than six percent of the world's continental terrace is adjacent to the United States, but less than one percent has been explored for oil and gas. Since the lead time for the development of offshore oil and gas resources can be as much as a decade, they do not provide an immediate energy supply but should be viewed in the light of a near-term source with a potential of becoming a medium-range source of supply pending the development of alternative energy sources. Revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf are deposited to the general fund of the United States Treasury. A major portion of these funds is allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the largest Federal grant-in-aid program of assistance to States, counties, and cities for the acquisition and development of public parks, open space, and recreation lands and water.

Circular

Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1966, Salt Lake County, Utah

An investigation of the water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, was undertaken by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in July 1963. This investigation is a cooperative project financed equally by the State of Utah and the Federal Government in accordance with an agreement between the State Engineer and the Geological Survey. The Utah Water and Power Board, Utah Fish and Game Commission, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Utah Power and Light Company, Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District contributed funds to the State Engineer's office toward support of the project. The investigation encompasses the collection and interpretation of a large variety of climatologic, hydrologic, and geologic data in and near Salt Lake County. Utah Basic-Data Releases 11 and 12 contain data collected through 1965. This release contains climatologic and surface-water data for the 1966 water year (October 1965 to September 1966) and groundwater data collected during the 1966 calendar year. Similar annual releases will contain data collected during the remainder of the investigation, and interpretive reports will be prepared as the investigation proceeds. Organizations that furnished data are acknowledged in station descriptions and footnotes to tables.

Utah

Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1965, Salt Lake County, Utah

An investigation of the water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, was undertaken by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in July 1963. This investigation is a cooperative project financed equally by the State of Utah and the Federal Government in accordance with an agreement between the State Engineer and the Geological Survey. The Utah Water and Power Board, Utah Fish and Game Commission, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Utah Power and Light Company, Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. contributed funds to the State Engineer's office toward support of the project. The investigation encompasses the collection and interpretation of a large variety of climatologic, hydrologic, and geologic data in and near Salt Lake County. Utah Basic-Data Release No. 11 contains data collected through 1964. This release contains climatologic and surface-water data for the 1965 water year (October 1964 to September 1965) and ground-water data collected during the 1965 calendar year. Similar annual releases will contain data collected during the remainder of the investigation, and interpretive reports will be prepared as the investigation proceeds. Organizations that furnished data are acknowledged in station descriptions and footnotes to tables.

Utah

Digital mapping techniques '04, workshop proceedings : May 16-19, 2004, Portland, Oregon

The Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04 (DMT’04) workshop was attended by about 100 technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous seven meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), and in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003). This year’s meeting was hosted by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, from May 16–19, 2004, on the Portland State University campus in Portland, Oregon. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, Berg, and Stamm, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/ ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the National database—and for the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2004 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, “publishing” includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report

Digital mapping techniques '03 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '03 (DMT'03) workshop was attended by nearly 90 technical experts from 36 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). Although the meeting was slightly smaller than DMT'02 it was, considering the budget deficits in nearly all 50 states, very well attended. This workshop was similar in nature to the previous six meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), and in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002). This year's meeting was hosted by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, from June 1-4, 2003, on the Millersville University campus in Millersville, Pennsylvania. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and <http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/ standards/datacapt/>). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database— and the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2003 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) digital cartographic techniques, 3) analytical GIS techniques; 4) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 5) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language, and 6) the need to archive both the published products and the data and observational data that support it.

Open-File Report

Digital Mapping Techniques '05--Workshop Proceedings, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 24-27, 2005

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '05 (DMT'05) workshop was attended by more than 100 technical experts from 47 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous eight meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), and in Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004). This year's meeting was hosted by the Louisiana Geological Survey, from April 24-27, 2005, on the Louisiana State University campus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database?and for the State and Federal geological surveys?to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2005 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report

Digital mapping techniques '02, workshop proceedings : May 19-22, 2002, Salt Lake City, Utah

The Digital Mapping Techniques '02 (DMT'02) workshop was attended by 101 technical experts from 43 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous five meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), and in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001). This year's meeting was hosted by the Utah Geological Survey, from May 19 to 22, 2002, on the University of Utah campus in Salt Lake City. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique on the basis of discussions at the workshop, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/ ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database--and the State and Federal geological surveys--to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2002 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) techniques for scanning already published maps and managing and delivering them on the Web; (3) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and (4) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. In addition, special presentations were provided on building a statewide GIS council, incorporating geology as a NSDI Framework layer, and resolving the roles of surveyors and GIS professionals.

Open-File Report

Abstracts for the October 2012 meeting on volcanism in the American Southwest, Flagstaff, Arizona

Though volcanic eruptions are comparatively rare in the American Southwest, the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah host Holocene volcanic eruption deposits and are vulnerable to future volcanic activity. Compared with other parts of the western United States, comparatively little research has been focused on this area, and eruption probabilities are poorly constrained. Monitoring infrastructure consists of a variety of local seismic networks, and ”backbone“ geodetic networks with little integration. Emergency response planning for volcanic unrest has received little attention by either Federal or State agencies. On October 18–20, 2012, 90 people met at the U.S. Geological Survey campus in Flagstaff, Arizona, providing an opportunity for volcanologists, land managers, and emergency responders to meet, converse, and begin to plan protocols for any future activity. Geologists contributed data on recent findings of eruptive ages, eruption probabilities, and hazards extents (plume heights, ash dispersal). Geophysicists discussed evidence for magma intrusions from seismic, geodetic, and other geophysical techniques. Network operators publicized their recent work and the relevance of their equipment to volcanic regions. Land managers and emergency responders shared their experiences with emergency planning for earthquakes. The meeting was organized out of the recognition that little attention had been paid to planning for or mitigation of volcanic hazards in the American Southwest. Moreover, few geological meetings have hosted a session specifically devoted to this topic. This volume represents one official outcome of the meeting—a collection of abstracts related to talks and poster presentations shared during the first two days of the meeting. In addition, this report includes the meeting agenda as a record of the proceedings. One additional intended outcome will be greater discussion and coordination among emergency responders, geologists, geophysicists, and land managers regarding geologic hazards in the Southwest.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah

Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1967, Salt Lake County, Utah

An investigation of the water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah, was undertaken by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in July 1963. This investigation is a cooperative project financed chiefly by equal contributions of the State of Utah and the Federal Government in accordance with an agreement between the Division of Water Rights, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and the Geological Survey. The investigation was financed during the period covered by this report by the following organizations: Utah Division of Water Rights (formerly State Engineer), Utah Division of Water Resources (formerly Water and Power Board), Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, City of Murray, Granger-Hunter Improvement District, Taylorsville-Bennion Improvement District, Holladay Water Company, Magna Water and Sewer District, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey. The investigation encompasses the collection and interpretation of a large variety of climatologic, hydrologic, and geologic data in and near Salt Lake County. Utah Basic-Data Releases 11-13 contain data collected through 1966. This release contains climatologic and surfacewater data for the 1967 water year (October 1966 to September 1967) and ground-water data collected during the 1967 calendar year. A similar annual release will contain data collected during the remainder of the investigation, and interpretive reports will be prepared as the investigation proceeds. Organizations that furnished data are acknowledged in station descriptions and footnotes to tables.

Utah

Collection of short papers on Beaver Creek watershed studies in West Tennessee, 1989-94

In 1989, the U.S. Geological Survey began a scientific investigation to evaluate the effect of agricultural activities on water quality and the effectiveness of agricultural best management practices in the Beaver Creek watershed, West Tennessee. The project is being conducted jointly with other Federal, State, county agencies, the farming community, and academic institutions, in support of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Hydrologic Unit Area program. The Beaver Creek project has evolved into a long-term watershed assessment and monitoring program. In 1991, a grant was received to develop and evaluate sampling strategies for higher order streams. During the summer of 1992, a reconnaissance of water-quality conditions for the shallow aquifers in Shelby, Tipton, Fayette, and Haywood Counties was conducted and included 89 domestic wells in the Beaver Creek watershed. Results from this effort lead to the development of a 1-year program to evaluate cause- and-effect relations that can explain the observed water-quality conditions for the shallow aquifers in the watershed. In 1992 the USGS, in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service and the Shelby County Soil Conservation District, began an evaluation of in-stream processes and in-stream resource-management systems. In 1993, a biomonitoring program was established in the watershed. This collection of eight articles and abstracts was originally published in the American Water Resources Association National Symposium on Water Quality Proceedings for the national conference held in Chicago in 1994 and describes what has been learned in the study to date.

Tennessee

Science in support of the Deepwater Horizon response

This introduction to the Special Feature presents the context for science during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response, summarizes how scientific knowledge was integrated across disciplines and statutory responsibilities, identifies areas where scientific information was accurate and where it was not, and considers lessons learned and recommendations for future research and response. Scientific information was integrated within and across federal and state agencies, with input from nongovernmental scientists, across a diverse portfolio of needs—stopping the flow of oil, estimating the amount of oil, capturing and recovering the oil, tracking and forecasting surface oil, protecting coastal and oceanic wildlife and habitat, managing fisheries, and protecting the safety of seafood. Disciplines involved included atmospheric, oceanographic, biogeochemical, ecological, health, biological, and chemical sciences, physics, geology, and mechanical and chemical engineering. Platforms ranged from satellites and planes to ships, buoys, gliders, and remotely operated vehicles to laboratories and computer simulations. The unprecedented response effort depended directly on intense and extensive scientific and engineering data, information, and advice. Many valuable lessons were learned that should be applied to future events.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

Digital mapping techniques '06 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '06 (DMT'06) workshop was attended by more than 110 technical experts from 51 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 27 state geological surveys (see Appendix A of these Proceedings). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous nine meetings, which were held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004), and Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Soller, 2005). This year's meeting was hosted by the Ohio Geological Survey, from June 11-14, 2006, on the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure that I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, the latter of which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database - and for the State and Federal geological surveys - to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2006 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; and 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report

Comparisons of genetic diversity in captive versus wild populations of the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino Behr; Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

Captive populations can play a significant role in threatened and endangered species management. An important consideration when developing and managing captive populations, however, is the maintenance of genetic diversity to ensure that adequate variation exists to avoid the negative consequences of inbreeding. In this investigation, we compared genetic diversity patterns within captive and wild populations of the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino Behr [Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae]), a taxon with a restricted distribution to chaparral and sage shrublands within Riverside and San Diego counties, California. Our analyses revealed that medium to high-frequency alleles from the wild populations were also present in the captive populations. While there was no significant difference in genetic diversity as quantified by expected heterozygosity, the captive populations showed tendencies toward significantly lower allelic richness than their wild counterparts. Given that alleles from the wild populations were occasionally not detected in captive populations, periodic incorporation of new wild specimens into the captive population would help ensure that allelic diversity is maintained to the extent possible. If performed in advance, genetic surveys of wild populations may provide the clearest insights regarding the number of individuals needed in captivity to adequately reflect wild populations.

California

Book review: Proceedings of the First International Snakehead Symposium

Snakehead fishes (family Channidae) are among the most maligned aquatic invasive species in the USA and some other countries where they have been introduced outside of their native range in Asia and Africa. Nevertheless, snakeheads continue to be widely exploited in the live‐food trade in aquaculture and wild‐capture fisheries, are highly sought by anglers, and are also popular in the aquarium trade (Courtenay and Williams 2004). The Northern Snakehead Channa argus is the most widespread of the three channid species that are currently naturalized in the USA. This species has generated much concern and controversy, a situation that is partly fueled by sensational media coverage and B‐grade science fiction horror films, such as “Frankenfish,” “Snakehead Terror,” and “Snakehead Swamp.” Media reports of snakehead introductions are often replete with provocative terms, such as “vicious,” “villain,” “voracious,” “monster,” “diabolical,” and even “ecological Armageddon.” When snakeheads first appeared in natural waters of the USA, fisheries professionals became increasingly interested in their status. Established populations rapidly expanded in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas, with scattered reports of introduced snakeheads from isolated locations in Hawaii, California, North Carolina, Florida, the Upper Midwest, and New England. In 2002, snakeheads were added to the list of injurious fishes under the Lacey Act, thereby prohibiting their importation or transport across state lines without a permit. This symposium was conceived by the editors and other concerned fisheries professionals of the Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species. The mission of the symposium, held in Alexandria, Virginia, in July 2018, was to bring together experts on snakehead biology and ecology and to synthesize existing information into summary papers. In this book, 35 authors contributed to 15 peer‐reviewed articles that detail the current state of knowledge about snakehead introductions in the USA. Additionally, 16 abstracts are included from meeting presentations that were not accompanied by full‐length manuscripts. Also included is a summary of a facilitated symposium panel discussion featuring eight experts representing state and federal natural resource agencies and private fishing organizations. The book is organized into six sections. In the first section (Distribution), three papers provide an overview of the Channa species introduced into the USA and historical accounts of occurrence and dispersal of the Northern Snakehead in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas. The second section (Biology/Ecology) consists of two articles that examine growth and energetics of Northern Snakehead populations and two papers that investigate diet, diel feeding activity, and movement of this species in the Potomac River drainage. The third section (Monitoring/Response) includes a paper that models range expansion of the Northern Snakehead in the southeastern USA based on occurrence data and environmental conditions. Also included in this section is a paper summarizing an environmental DNA study to assess the status and range of the Bullseye Snakehead C. marulius in southern Florida. The fourth section (Management/Control) is comprised of four papers that address harvest, age and growth, and development of a stock–recruitment model to inform management decisions regarding control and mitigation for Northern Snakehead populations in the greater Chesapeake Bay area. The fifth section (Perspectives) includes a paper on the history of snakehead introductions in Japan and a thought‐provoking social commentary on the human dimensions of Northern Snakehead management. Abstracts in the final section provide brief summaries of a diversity of snakehead studies, including aspects of distribution, ecology, behavior, control and monitoring efforts, public outreach, and pathology. The summary of the panel discussion is an engaging dialogue about the challenges of snakehead management in the context of conflicts regarding snakeheads as injurious versus their value as game and food species. Most of this book is focused on the Northern Snakehead. Much has been done to document snakehead distributions and certain aspects of snakehead biology, such as diets, age, and growth. Less research has been devoted to understanding the ecological impacts of snakeheads to native aquatic communities and ecosystems. This book would have benefited from a chapter summarizing the current systematics and diversity of the Channidae to inform fisheries biologists about the morphological characteristics of the family, approximate numbers of genera and species, and taxonomic instability. Exemplifying the latter, recent molecular and morphological evidence indicates uncertainty regarding identification of the feral snakehead population in Florida (Adamson and Britz 2019). Those authors suggest that this population may have originated from western Thailand, a possibility that could have implications for understanding historical pathways of snakehead introductions into the USA. In comparison with many published AFS symposia, this volume is relatively narrow in scope and lacks cohesive integration. It will primarily be of interest to those fisheries professionals engaged in the study of snakeheads as well as other nonnative species for which there are contrasting social values regarding their management: whether to monitor and attempt control or eradication efforts or to maintain populations for harvest as game or food species. The book should serve to identify information gaps and guide future research.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

Variance estimation for the Federal Waterfowl Harvest Surveys

The Federal Waterfowl Harvest Surveys provide estimates of waterfowl harvest by species for flyways and states, harvests of most other migratory game bird species (by waterfowl hunters), crippling losses for ducks, geese, and coots, days hunted, and bag per hunter. The Waterfowl Hunter Questionnaire Survey separately estimates the harvest of ducks and geese using cluster samples of hunters who buy duck stamps at sample post offices. The Waterfowl Parts Collection estimates species, age, and sex ratios from parts solicited from successful hunters who responded to the Waterfowl Hunter Questionnaire Survey in previous years. These ratios are used to partition the duck and goose harvest into species, age, and sex specific harvest estimates. Annual estimates are correlated because successful hunters who respond to the Questionnaire Survey in one year may be asked to contribute to the Parts Collection for the next three years. Bootstrap variance estimates are used because covariances among years are difficult to estimate.

American Statistical Association, Proceedings of t

Extended abstracts from the Coastal Habitats in Puget Sound (CHIPS) 2006 Workshop

Puget Sound is the second largest estuary in the United States. Its unique geology, climate, and nutrient-rich waters produce and sustain biologically productive coastal habitats. These same natural characteristics also contribute to a high quality of life that has led to a significant growth in human population and associated development. This population growth, and the accompanying rural and urban development, has played a role in degrading Puget Sound ecosystems, including declines in fish and wildlife populations, water-quality issues, and loss and degradation of coastal habitats. In response to these ecosystem declines and the potential for strategic large-scale preservation and restoration, a coalition of local, State, and Federal agencies, including the private sector, Tribes, and local universities, initiated the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP). The Nearshore Science Team (NST) of PSNERP, along with the U.S. Geological Survey, developed a Science Strategy and Research Plan (Gelfenbaum and others, 2006) to help guide science activities associated with nearshore ecosystem restoration. Implementation of the Research Plan includes a call for State and Federal agencies to direct scientific studies to support PSNERP information needs. In addition, the overall Science Strategy promotes greater communication with decision makers and dissemination of scientific results to the broader scientific community. On November 14–16, 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey sponsored an interdisciplinary Coastal Habitats in Puget Sound (CHIPS) Research Workshop at Fort Worden State Park, Port Townsend, Washington. The main goals of the workshop were to coordinate, integrate, and link research on the nearshore of Puget Sound. Presented research focused on three themes: (1) restoration of large river deltas; (2) recovery of the nearshore ecosystem of the Elwha River; and (3) effects of urbanization on nearshore ecosystems. The more than 35 presentations covered a wide range of ongoing inter-disciplinary research, including studies of sediment geochemistry of aquatic environments, sediment budgets, tracking fish pathways, expansion of invasive forams, beach and nearshore sedimentary environments, using influence diagrams as a decision support tool, forage fish, submarine groundwater, and much, much more. The primary focus within these themes was on developing information on the physical, chemical, and biological processes, as well as the human dimensions, associated with the restoration or rehabilitation of the nearshore environment. The workshop was an excellent opportunity for USGS scientists and collaborators who are working on Puget Sound coastal habitats to present their preliminary findings, discuss upcoming research, and to identify opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. A compilation of extended abstracts from workshop participants, this proceedings volume serves as a useful reference for attendees of the workshop and for those unable to attend. Taken together, the abstracts in this report provide a view of the current status of USGS multidisciplinary research on Puget Sound coastal habitats.

Open-File Report

Digital mapping techniques '99 -- workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '99 (DMT'99) workshop was attended by 91 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 30 state geological surveys (see Appendix A ). This workshop was similar in nature to the first two meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), and in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a). This year's meeting was hosted by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, from May 19 to 22, 1999, on the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, ìpublishingî includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. Especially to support the interest in map preparation and publication, five representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The three annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/datacaptureWG.html ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report

Archive of post-Hurricane Isabel coastal oblique aerial photographs collected during U.S. Geological Survey Field Activity 03CCH01 from Ocean City, Maryland, to Fort Caswell, North Carolina and Inland from Waynesboro to Redwood, Virginia, September 21 - 23, 2003

On September 21 - 23, 2003, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted an oblique aerial photographic survey along the Atlantic coast from Ocean City, Md., to Fort Caswell, N.C., and inland oblique aerial photographic survey from Waynesboro to Redwood, Va., aboard a Navajo Piper twin-engine airplane. The coastal survey was conducted at an altitude of 500 feet (ft) and approximately 1,000 ft offshore. For the inland photos, the aircraft tried to stay approximately 500 ft above the terrain. These coastal photos were used to document coastal changes like beach erosion and overwash caused by Hurricane Isabel, while the inland photos looked for potential landslides caused by heavy rains. The photos may also be used as baseline data for future coastal change analysis. The USGS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) surveyed the impact zone of Hurricane Isabel to better understand the changes in vulnerability of the Nation’s coasts to extreme storms (Morgan, 2009). This report serves as an archive of photographs collected during the September 21 - 23, 2003, post-Hurricane Isabel coastal and inland oblique aerial survey along with associated survey maps, KML files, navigation files, digital Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansions of all acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 03CCH01 tells us the data were collected in 2003 for the Coastal Change Hazards (CCH) study and the data were collected during the first field activity for that project in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the ID number. The photographs provided here are Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) scanned images of the analog 35 millimeter (mm) color positive slides. The photograph locations are estimates of the location of the plane (see the Navigation page). The metadata values for photo creation time, GPS latitude, GPS longitude, GPS position (latitude and longitude), keywords, credit, artist, caption, copyright, and contact were added to each photograph's EXIF header using EXIFtool (Subino and others, 2012). Photographs can be opened directly with any JPEG-compatible image viewer by clicking on a thumbnail on the contact sheet, or, when viewing the Google Earth KML file, by clicking on the marker and then clicking on either the thumbnail or the link below the thumbnail. Nathaniel Plant (USGS - St. Petersburg, Fla.), and Ann Marie Ascough (formerly contracted at the USGS - St. Petersburg, Fla.) helped with the creation of KML files. To view the photos and survey maps, proceed to the Photos and Maps page.

Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia