SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “NOAA Data Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

USGS2024

Pilot framework for fish habitat assessments across tidal and non tidal waters in the Patuxent River Basin

As part of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, all Bay States and the District of Columbia have committed to improving the condition of the Bay, which includes a goal to achieve sustainable fisheries. One outcome under that broad goal is improved effectiveness of fish habitat conservation and preservation efforts. In support of that outcome, the U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Ecological Science Center (USGS-EESC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA-NCCOS) are actively developing datasets, methods, and analyses to conduct fish habitat assessments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, guided by recommendations from a regional stakeholder workshop held by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Fish Habitat Action Team (FHAT) in 2018. The joint USGS and NOAA team has been collaborating on methods for conducting inland and estuarine assessments and exploring whether a seamless headwater to estuary assessment could be developed. The goals of this assessment are to benefit both State and Federal fisheries managers, help advance fisheries science, and provide beneficial information for the public. While past national and regional assessments (e.g. the National Fish Habitat Partnership National Assessment) treated inland and estuarine fish habitat conditions separately due to differences in environments, GIS data representation, and data availability, a seamless habitat assessment could be of value for a broad range of stakeholders as many fish species, several of which are invasive or under federal jurisdiction, use habitats across both inland and estuarine waters. This project developed a pilot framework, explored and tested methods necessary for a finer scale, seamless assessment across both inland and estuarine waters, and demonstrated its use. Although there was interest by the CBP FHAT for the generation of a Baywide fish habitat assessment that spanned tidal salt, tidal fresh, warm non-tidal and cold non-tidal waters, there are a myriad of implementation details and considerations around conducting a Baywide assessment across all four of these general habitat areas. Therefore, the practical need to conduct a tributary-specific pilot assessment arose. At the beginning of this pilot process, members of the FHAT were presented with a decision matrix to choose a study basin using factors such as data availability and tributary size. FHAT members chose the Patuxent River basin, which has been relatively well sampled and studied. Several spatial frameworks were considered before selection of an inclusive gridded framework for summary and analysis that represented inland drainage networks and landscape influences as well as estuarine bathymetry. A suite of landscape and in-water stressor variables were summarized into the framework and were largely generalized over time. In order to assess the viability of the framework, we chose to use species distribution modeling for each of the species to test the framework’s ability to predict habitat use of non-tidal resident, estuarine resident, and migratory species. Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and white perch (Morone americana) were chosen as illustrative fish species based on data availability, and differences in life history and habitat use. A nested modeling approach, which involved successive model runs at multiple scales (1000m, 100m, and 10m raster grids) was developed to examine differences in variable importance at different spatial scales and to enhance modeling efficiency. For white perch, a complementary modeling analysis was performed for variables available only in estuarine waters. For all testing, an ensemble modeling approach was conducted, using a suite of potential statistical techniques driven by model strength and variable predictive power. The statistical testing that we conducted was intended only to test the framework and modeling approach, and not to definitively predict all habitats where specific fish species might be present. The modeling we conducted to test the framework did have some limitations. For example, the spatial distribution of favorable habitat areas for white perch was likely influenced by the predominance of fish survey locations near the center channel of the river and the use of generalized in-water conditions. For all species, the use of juvenile and adult fish survey data limits the estimation of habitat use to those life stages. Despite such limitations of the data inputs and modeling approach, we found the framework could seamlessly predict fish habitat distribution across freshwater and tidal environments and integrate the influence of landscape stressors with local in-water factors. The developed framework presented to the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team (GIT) and FHAT is informative and could potentially be used for other modeling applications in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and elsewhere. In particular the framework and modeling approach lend themselves to evaluating living resource distributions and underlying habitat conditions in shallow tidal waters and beyond, as recommended by the recent Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response (CESR) report from the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Maryland↗

USGS2001

Cruise Report; RV Moana Wave cruise M1-01-GM; the bathymetry and acoustic backscatter of the mid shelf to upper slope off Panama City, Florida, northeastern Gulf of Mexico; September 3, through October 12, 2001, Panama City, FL to Panama City, FL

A zone of deep-water reefs is thought to extend from the mid and outer shelf south of Mississippi and Alabama to at least the northwestern Florida shelf off Panama City, Florida (Figure 1, 67kb). The reefs off Mississippi and Alabama are found in water depths of 60 to 120 m (Ludwick and Walton, 1957; Gardner et al., in press) and were the focus of a multibeam echosounder (MBES) mapping survey by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2000 (Gardner et al., 2000; in press). If this deep-water-reef trend does exist along the northwestern Florida shelf, then it is critical to determine the accurate geomorphology and type of the reefs that occur because of their importance as benthic habitats for fisheries. Precisely georeferenced high-resolution mapping of bathymetry is a fundamental first step in the study of areas suspected to be critical habitats. Morphology is thought to be critical to defining the distribution of dominant demersal plankton/planktivores communities. Fish faunas of shallow hermatypic reefs have been well studied, but those of deep ahermatypic reefs have been relatively ignored. The ecology of deep-water ahermatypic reefs is fundamentally different from hermatypic reefs because autochthonous intracellular symbiotic zooxanthellae (the carbon source for hermatypic corals) do not form the base of the trophic web in ahermatypic reefs. Instead, exogenous plankton, transported to the reef by currents, serves as the primary carbon source. Thus, one of the principle uses of the morphology data will be to identify whether any reefs found are hermatypic or ahermatypic in origin. Community structure and trophodynamics of demersal fishes of the outer continental of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico presently are the focus of a major USGS reseach project. A goal of the project is to answer questions concerning the relative roles played by morphology and surficial geology in controling biological differentiation. Deep-water reefs are important because they are fish havens, key spawning sites, and are critical early larval and juvenile habitats for economically important sport/food fishes. It is known that deep-water reefs function as a key source for re-population (via seasonal and ontogenetic migration) of heavily impacted inshore reefs. The deep-water reefs south of Mississippi and Alabama support a lush fauna of ahermatypic hard corals, soft corals, black corals, sessile crinoids and sponges, that together form a living habitat for a well-developed fish fauna. The fish fauna comprises typical Caribbean reef fishes and Carolinian shelf fishes, plus epipelagic fishes, and a few deep-sea fishes. The base of the megafaunal invertebrate food web is plankton, borne by essentially continuous semi-laminar currents generated by eddies, spawned off the Loop Current, that periodically travel across the shelf edge. A few, sidescan-sonar surveys have been made of areas locally identified as Destin Pinnacles, Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserve (Koenig et al., 2000; Scanlon, et al., 2000; 2001), Twin Ridges (Briere, et al., 2000; Scanlon, et al., 2000), and Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve (Koenig et al., 2000; Scanlon, et al., 2000; 2001). However, no quantitative and little qualitative information about the geomorphology and surficial geology can be gained from these data. Existing bathymetry along the northwestern Florida shelf suggests the existence of areas of possible isolated deep-water reefs. NOAA bathymetric maps NOS NH16-9 and NG16-12 show geomorphic expressions that hint of the presence of reefs in isolated areas rather than in a continuous zone. There has been no systematic, high-resolution bathymetry collected in this area, prior to this cruise. After the successful mapping of the deep-water reefs on the Mississippi and Alabama shelf (Gardner et al., 2000; in press), a partnership composed of the USGS, Minerals Management Service, and NOAA was formed to continue the deep-reef mapping to the northwest Florida mid shelf and upper slope. This cruise is the first fruit of that partnership.

Florida↗

USGS1985

Satellite data-relay activities in Arizona

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Arizona District collects data from automated streamflow stations for a wide variety of uses. Data from these stations are provided to Federal, State, and local agencies that have a responsibility to issue flood warnings; to generate forecasts of water availability; to monitor flow to insure compliance with treaties and other legal mandates; and to manage reservoirs for hydropower, flood abatement, and municipal and irrigation water supply. In the mid-1970's, the escalation of data collection costs and a need for more timely data led the Arizona District to examine alternatives for remote data acquisition. On the basis of successful data communications experiments with NASA 's Landsat satellite, an operational system for satellite-data relay was developed in 1976 using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations 's (NOAA) Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES). A total of 62 data collection platforms (DCP's) was operated in 1983. Satellite telemetry operations are controlled at the remote data-collection stations by small battery-operated data collection platforms. The DCP 's periodically collect data from the sensors, store the data in computer memory, and at preset times transmit the data to the GOES satellite. The satellite retransmits the data to Earth where a ground-receive station transmits or transfers the data by land communications to the USGS computer in Reston, Virginia, for processing. The satellite relay transfers the data from sensor to computer in minutes; therefore, the data are available to users on a near real-time basis. (Author 's abstract)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2020

Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP): User guide for the Gulf Coast Monitoring and Assessment Portal

The Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act Final Rule at 31 C.F.R. Part 34) was signed into law on July 6, 2012. The RESTORE Act calls for a regional approach to restoring the long-term health of the valuable natural ecosystem and economy of the Gulf Coast region. The RESTORE Act dedicates 80 percent of civil and administrative penalties paid under the Clean Water Act, after the date of enactment, by the responsible parties in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund) for ecosystem restoration, economic recovery, and tourism promotion in the Gulf Coast region. In addition to creating the Trust Fund, the RESTORE Act established the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (RESTORE Council or Council). The Council includes the Governors of the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, the Army, Commerce, Homeland Security, and the Interior, and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Council plays a key role in developing strategies and implementing projects that help ensure the Gulf of Mexico’s natural resources are sustainable and available for future generations. The Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP) was approved as a Gulf-wide investment by the Council in the 2015 Initial Funded Priorities List and is administered jointly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Funded activities include the organization of basic, foundational components for a Gulf-wide monitoring network to measure the efficacy of investments in Gulf restoration by the Council. The program, in coordination with the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) and through collaboration with the Gulf States, federal and local partners, academia, non-governmental organizations, and business and industry, has leveraged existing resources, capacities, and expertise and built on existing monitoring programs and their data.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,↗

USGS2013

Marine benthic habitat mapping of the West Arm, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska

Seafloor geology and potential benthic habitats were mapped in West Arm, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska, using multibeam sonar, groundtruthed observations, and geological interpretations. The West Arm of Glacier Bay is a recently deglaciated fjord system under the influence of glacial and paraglacial marine processes. High glacially derived sediment and meltwater fluxes, slope instabilities, and variable bathymetry result in a highly dynamic estuarine environment and benthic ecosystem. We characterize the fjord seafloor and potential benthic habitats using the recently developed Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NatureServe. Due to the high flux of glacially sourced fines, mud is the dominant substrate within the West Arm. Water-column characteristics are addressed using a combination of CTD and circulation model results. We also present sediment accumulation data derived from differential bathymetry. These data show the West Arm is divided into two contrasting environments: a dynamic upper fjord and a relatively static lower fjord. The results of these analyses serve as a test of the CMECS classification scheme and as a baseline for ongoing and future mapping efforts and correlations between seafloor substrate, benthic habitats, and glacimarine processes.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

Drought prediction and water availability: A report on the 2022 USGS-NIDIS National Listening Session Series

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NOAA’s National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) conducted a series of four Listening Sessions in 2022 – each with a different application or topical focus – to seek input on priorities and needs related to predicting water availability changes under drought conditions at national and regional scales. This input was gathered to help inform the USGS Drought Program, regional and national drought efforts at NIDIS, and other national drought efforts. The series started with a February 2022 kick-off that introduced the series of Listening Sessions being held from March through September 2022. This kickoff also provided an overview of the USGS Drought Program’s work to characterize hydrological (e.g., streamflow and groundwater) drought, drought variability, drivers, and trends over the past century. Participants in these Listening Sessions included diverse stakeholder representation and perspectives. The first of the four Listening Sessions focused on streamflow (March 3, 2022), and included a short introduction to the USGS national streamflow drought research, the properties of a national drought prediction system, as well as presentations by other agencies on different drought prediction and forecasting efforts. The second session focused on groundwater (May 5, 2022), and included presentations on groundwater drought, sustainable groundwater management, and improving our understanding of soil moisture, groundwater, and surface water drought. The third session focused on water use (July 14, 2022), and included a discussion of the different drought types, as well as an introduction to several key projects, including the USGS Upper Colorado River Basin Study, the Ogallala Data Directory project, and a multi-agency drought prediction partnership in Oklahoma. The fourth and final Listening Session focused on water availability prediction for ecosystems (September 8, 2022), and included presentations on the development of a national capacity for eco-hydrological and drought science, building climate resilience, and actionable ecodrought resources.

Report↗

USGS2006

Sea floor topography and backscatter intensity of the Hudson Canyon region offshore of New York and New Jersey

These maps show the sea floor topography and backscatter intensity of the Hudson Canyon region on the continental slope and rise offshore of New Jersey and New York (fig. 1 and fig. 2). Sheet 1 shows sea floor topography as shaded relief. Sheet 2 shows sea floor topography as shaded relief with backscatter intensity superimposed in color. Both sheets are at a scale of 1:300,000 and also show smoothed topographic contours at selected intervals. The maps are based on new multibeam echo-sounder data collected on an 18-day cruise carried out aboard the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Ship Ronald H. Brown during August and September 2002. Additional multibeam data of the Hudson Canyon collected by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), on the continental shelf collected by the STRATAFORM project (Goff and others, 1999), and a survey of the Hudson Shelf Valley (Butman and others, 2003), and a compilation of bathymetric data from the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) Coastal Relief Model provide coverage of areas surrounding Hudson Canyon (fig. 2). Interpretations of the surficial geology also utilize widely spaced 3.5- and 10-kiloHertz (kHz) high-resolution seismic profiles collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (fig.2).

New Jersey, New York↗

USGS2023

Comprehensive inventory of habitat assessment and evaluation datasets to support Deepwater Horizon mesophotic and deep benthic communities

This report is part of the NOAA Mesophotic and Deep Benthic Communities (MDBC) Series of publications that share the results of work conducted by the Deepwater Horizon MDBC restoration projects. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an unprecedented event. Approximately 3.2 million barrels of oil were released into the deep ocean over nearly three months. The plume of oil moved throughout the water column, formed surface slicks that cumulatively covered an area the size of Virginia, and washed oil onto at least 1,300 miles of shoreline habitats. More than 770 square miles (2,000 square kilometers) of deep benthic habitat surrounding the Deepwater Horizon wellhead and 4-square miles of the Pinnacles mesophotic reef complex, located at the edge of the continental shelf, were injured by the oil spill. Under the Oil Pollution Act, state and federal natural resource trustees conducted a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA). The Trustees assessed damages, quantifying the unprecedented injuries to natural resources and lost services. They also developed a programmatic restoration plan to restore injured resources and compensate the public for lost services. In April 2016, a settlement was finalized that included up to $8.8 billion in funding for the Deepwater Horizon Trustees to restore the natural resource injuries caused by the oil spill as described in their programmatic restoration plan, Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Deepwater Horizon Open Ocean Trustee Implementation Group is responsible for restoring natural resources and their services within the Open Ocean Restoration Area that were injured by the oil spill. The Open Ocean Trustees include NOAA, Department of the Interior, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2019, the Open Ocean Trustee Implementation Group committed more than $126 million to implement four restoration projects to address the injury to MDBC. The MDBC projects are: mapping, Ground-truthing, and Predictive Habitat Modeling; Habitat Assessment and Evaluation; Coral Propagation Technique Development; and Active Management and Protection. NOAA and the Department of the Interior are implementing the projects, in cooperation with a range of partners, over eight years. Together, the projects take a phased approach to meet the challenges involved in restoring deep-sea habitats. Challenges to restoration include a limited scientific understanding of these communities, limited experience with restoration at the depths at which these communities occur, and remote locations that limit accessibility. More information about Deepwater Horizon restoration and the MDBC restoration projects is available at: www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov.

Gulf of Mexico↗

USGS2005

Advancing migratory bird conservation and management by using radar: An interagency collaboration

Migratory birds face many changes to the landscapes they traverse and the habitats they use. Wind turbines and communications towers, which pose hazards to birds and bats in flight, are being erected or proposed across the United States and offshore. Human activities can also destroy or threaten habitats critical to birds during migratory passage, and climate change appears to be altering migratory patterns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other agencies are under increasing pressure to identify and evaluate movement patterns and habitats used during migration and other times. Few tools for deciphering migratory travels exist, but radar-based studies of movements and habitat use patterns in songbirds, waterfowl, and bats hold promise. The U.S. system of over 150 Doppler weather radars provides continental coverage, similar to the scale of bird migration. Although data stored from weather radar represent perhaps the second largest biological data archive in the world, use of those data is currently limited to technically savvy biologists who can handle the obscure data formats. Complementary mobile radar units and thermal and acoustic monitoring are also used in site-specific studies. Efforts to advance bird conservation and management through the use of radar arose independently in several USFWS/USGS collaborations. Recently, this coalition of scientists and resource managers identified the need to work together more closely to foster radar-related research and software development. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists at Fort Collins Science Center, National Wetlands Research Center, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, as well as USFWS Migratory Bird biologists across the country, are collaborating with university partners to develop a suite of products for managers. The goals are to identify migratory pathways and stopover sites for conservation, mitigation, and landscape planning; convey the importance of functional landscapes and unobstructed airspaces for migrating wildlife; enable use of radar by the wider biological, wind power, and related communities; and simplify the analysis of radar data. The long term focus is to use radar technologies to better understand movement patterns and habitat associations of migratory birds and other wildlife. Land managers and industry may use the knowledge and tools developed to optimize the siting of energy projects, other facilities, and migratory bird habitat projects. The complementary endeavors, not all of which are funded, concentrate on four fundamentals: (1) develop software, in collaboration with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists, that enables biologists to access unfiltered weather data and integrate it into standard geographic information systems; (2) develop artificial intelligence-based filters that separate bird from nonbird radar echoes; (3) determine characteristics of bird migration in terms of altitude, speed and direction, daily movements, seasonality, and associations with habitats and landforms; and (4) examine specific movement patterns in relation to towers, wind generation facilities, and tall obstructions. Many technical issues make this work difficult, including complex data structures, massive data sets, digital recognition of birds, large areas not covered by weather radar, and model validation; however, progress will only be furthered by tackling the challenge. The new coalition will meets its goals by: (1) facilitating a productive collaboration with NOAA, Department of the Interior bureaus, state wildlife agencies, universities, power companies, and other potential partners; (2) building and strengthening scientific capabilities within USGS; (3) addressing key migratory bird management issues; and (4) ensuring full funding for the collaborative effort.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Capturing interactions between nitrogen and hydrological cycles under historical climate and land use: Susquehanna watershed analysis with the GFDL land model LM3-TAN

We developed a process model LM3-TAN to assess the combined effects of direct human influences and climate change on terrestrial and aquatic nitrogen (TAN) cycling. The model was developed by expanding NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory land model LM3V-N of coupled terrestrial carbon and nitrogen (C-N) cycling and including new N cycling processes and inputs such as a soil denitrification, point N sources to streams (i.e., sewage), and stream transport and microbial processes. Because the model integrates ecological, hydrological, and biogeochemical processes, it captures key controls of the transport and fate of N in the vegetation–soil–river system in a comprehensive and consistent framework which is responsive to climatic variations and land-use changes. We applied the model at 1/8° resolution for a study of the Susquehanna River Basin. We simulated with LM3-TAN stream dissolved organic-N, ammonium-N, and nitrate-N loads throughout the river network, and we evaluated the modeled loads for 1986–2005 using data from 16 monitoring stations as well as a reported budget for the entire basin. By accounting for interannual hydrologic variability, the model was able to capture interannual variations of stream N loadings. While the model was calibrated with the stream N loads only at the last downstream Susquehanna River Basin Commission station Marietta (40°02' N, 76°32' W), it captured the N loads well at multiple locations within the basin with different climate regimes, land-use types, and associated N sources and transformations in the sub-basins. Furthermore, the calculated and previously reported N budgets agreed well at the level of the whole Susquehanna watershed. Here we illustrate how point and non-point N sources contributing to the various ecosystems are stored, lost, and exported via the river. Local analysis of six sub-basins showed combined effects of land use and climate on soil denitrification rates, with the highest rates in the Lower Susquehanna Sub-Basin (extensive agriculture; Atlantic coastal climate) and the lowest rates in the West Branch Susquehanna Sub-Basin (mostly forest; Great Lakes and Midwest climate). In the re-growing secondary forests, most of the N from non-point sources was stored in the vegetation and soil, but in the agricultural lands most N inputs were removed by soil denitrification, indicating that anthropogenic N applications could drive substantial increase of N 2 O emission, an intermediate of the denitrification process.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2006

Geologic interpretation and multibeam bathymetry of the sea floor in southeastern Long Island Sound

Digital terrain models (DTMs) produced from multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetric data provide valuable base maps for marine geological interpretations (e.g. Todd and others, 1999; Mosher and Thomson, 2002; ten Brink and others, 2004; Poppe and others, 2006a,b). These maps help define the geological variability of the sea floor (one of the primary controls of benthic habitat diversity); improve our understanding of the processes that control the distribution and transport of bottom sediments, the distribution of benthic habitats and associated infaunal community structures; and provide a detailed framework for future research, monitoring, and management activities. The bathymetric survey interpreted herein (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) survey H11255) covers roughly 95 km? of sea floor in southeastern Long Island Sound (fig. 1). This bathymetry has been examined in relation to seismic reflection data collected concurrently, as well as archived seismic profiles acquired as part of a long-standing geologic mapping partnership between the State of Connecticut and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The objective of this work was to use these geophysical data sets to interpret geomorphological attributes of the sea floor in terms of the Quaternary geologic history and modern sedimentary processes within Long Island Sound.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2021

A characterization of deep-sea coral and sponge communities along the California and Oregon coast using a remotely operated vehicle on the EXPRESS 2018 expedition

Deep-sea coral and sponge (DSCS) communities serve as essential fish habitats (EFH) by providing shelter and nursery habitat, increasing diversity, and increasing prey availability (Freese and Wing, 2003; Bright, 2007; Baillon et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2020). Threats to these long-lived, fragile organisms from bottom contact fishing gear, potential offshore renewable energy development, and ocean warming and acidification have increased the need for DSCS research along the U.S. West Coast (Gomez et al., 2018; Salgado et al., 2018; Yoklavich, et al., 2018; Gugliotti et al., 2019). The focus of these studies has varied from species distribution and abundance (Yoklavich and Love, 2005; Tissot et al., 2006) to developing and validating predictive distribution models (Huff et al., 2013; Rooper et al., 2017; Kreidler, 2020) to finding medicinal uses for corals and sponges (Essack et al., 2011; Shrestha et al., 2018). Due to the vast area of unexplored seafloor within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ; 200 nautical miles off the coast) and the technological requirements and expanse of deep-sea research, there is still much to learn about the distributions and biology of DSCS. This information is critical to resource managers for effective conservation and management of DSCS habitats. Protections are provided by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) designation of groundfish EFH conservation areas (EFHCA) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Areas designated as EFHCA are closed to bottom trawl fishing to protect and preserve seafloor habitats. Recently the PFMC adopted Amendment 28 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (GFMP; Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2019) which modified EFHCAs by closing new areas identified as vulnerable and reopening areas deemed not vulnerable. The NMSA prohibits bottom disturbance from certain activities within areas designated as national marine sanctuaries, such as oil and gas exploration or extraction, cable laying, and other forms of seabed alteration or construction that disturb benthic communities. NOAA’s Deep-Sea Coral and Research Technology Program (DSCRTP) began a 4-yr funding initiative for the U.S. West Coast in 2017. The goals of the West Coast Deep-Sea Coral Initiative (WCDSCI) were to: 1) gather baseline information on areas subject to fishing regulation changes prior to the implementation of Amendment 28; 2) improve our understanding of known DSCS bycatch “hot spots”; and 3) explore and assess DSCS resources within NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries with emphasis on areas of sanctuary resource protection and management concerns. During the first year of the program, a research cruise was developed to survey the West Coast from Oregon to California studying the DSCS ecosystems in priority areas. The 31-day expedition (9 Oct – 8 Nov, 2018) was launched from the NOAA Ship Bell M. Shimada, beginning in Newport, OR and ending in San Diego, CA. The science team assembled for this cruise were members of the EXpanding Pacific Research and Exploration of Submerged Systems (EXPRESS) campaign, which brings together researchers from federal and nonfederal institutions to collaborate on scientific expeditions targeting the deepwater areas off California, Oregon, and Washington. EXPRESS supports researchers leveraging funding, resources, personnel, and expertise to accomplish more science than would have been possible by a single entity alone. The 2018 coastwide expedition included research partners from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), National Ocean Service (Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Research objectives for the cruise were to: 1) Collect DSCS baseline information at 10 of the EFHCA sites undergoing protection modifications by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2) Collect DSCS and fish data at previously unexplored sites within West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. 3) Revisit a subset of previously surveyed sites to document if changes in DCSC have occurred over time. 4) Collect information to validate BOEM supported cross-shelf habitat suitability models for DSCS. 5) Collect samples to help in identifying (and understanding) West Coast DSCS and expand use of new technologies (ROV, AUV, and environmental DNA [eDNA]). 6) Collect water samples for coastwide eDNA, nutrient, and carbon chemistry studies.

California, Oregon↗

USGS2010

Marine benthic habitat mapping of Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska, with an evaluation of the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard III

Seafloor geology and potential benthic habitats were mapped in Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska, using multibeam sonar, ground-truth information, and geological interpretations. Muir Inlet is a recently deglaciated fjord that is under the influence of glacial and paraglacial marine processes. High glacially derived sediment and meltwater fluxes, slope instabilities, and variable bathymetry result in a highly dynamic estuarine environment and benthic ecosystem. We characterize the fjord seafloor and potential benthic habitats using the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) recently developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NatureServe. Substrates within Muir Inlet are dominated by mud, derived from the high glacial debris flux. Water-column characteristics are derived from a combination of conductivity temperature depth (CTD) measurements and circulation-model results. We also present modern glaciomarine sediment accumulation data from quantitative differential bathymetry. These data show Muir Inlet is divided into two contrasting environments: a dynamic upper fjord and a relatively static lower fjord. The accompanying maps represent the first publicly available high-resolution bathymetric surveys of Muir Inlet. The results of these analyses serve as a test of the CMECS and as a baseline for continued mapping and correlations among seafloor substrate, benthic habitats, and glaciomarine processes.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS1987

Status of worldwide Landsat archive

In cooperation with the International Landsat community, and through the Landsat Technical Working Group (LTWG), NOAA is assembling information about the status of the Worldwide Landsat Archive. During LTWG 9, member nations agreed to participate in a survey of International Landsat data holding and of their archive experiences with Landsat data. The goal of the effort was two-fold; one, to document the Landsat archive to date, and, two, to ensure that specific nations' experience with long-term Landsat archival problems were available to others. The survey requested details such as amount of data held, the format of the archive holdings by Spacecraft/Sensor, and acquisition years; the estimated costs to accumulated process, and replace the data (if necessary); the storage space required, and any member nation's plans that would establish the insurance of continuing quality. As a group, the LTWG nations are concerned about the characteristics and reliability of long-term magnetic media storage. Each nation's experience with older data retrieval is solicited in the survey. This information will allow nations to anticipate and plan for required changes to their archival holdings. Also solicited were reports of any upgrades to a nation's archival system that are currently planned and all results of attempts to reduce archive holdings including methodology, current status, and the planned access rates and product support that are anticipated for responding to future archival usage.

Conference Paper↗

USGS1992

Map showing bottom topography of the Pacific continental margin, Point Conception to Point Loma

All contours, geographic outlines, and political boundaries shown on this map of the bottom topography, or bathymetry, of the Pacific continental margin between 34° and 41° N. latitudes were plotted from digital data bases in the library of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint Office for Mapping and Research (JOMAR). These digital data were obtained and compiled from many sources; consequently, data quality varies within particular data bases as well as from one data base to another. Bathymetric contours north of 32°N. were digitized from a map by Chase and others (1981) and from the unpublished large scale versions of that map (T. E. Chase, unpublished maps, 1981). South of 32°N, the contours are from unpublished maps (T.E. Chase and B.A. Seekins, unpublished maps, 1989). Chase and others (1981 and unpublished maps) obtained the data for the area seaward of the continental slope (-2000 m depth) primarily from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (C&GS) 1955 Pacific Exploratory Survey, a systematic and detailed (~8-nmi-trackline spacing) survey between Mexico and Canada. The USGS provided data from cruises S3-78-NC, L2-77-NC, L10-76-NC, K-73-NC, and Bartlett 72. Data were also obtained from Scripps Institution of Oceanography cruises Blue Flash, Kayak B, Scan I, and Seven Tow (Chase and Menard, 1971; Chase and others, 1975). The 200-m contour was derived from the National Ocean Survey charts 1206N-16 (1975a) and 1306N-20 (1975b), and C&GS charts 1206N-15 (1967a) and 1306N-19 (1967b). Sea-floor depths were corrected for sound velocity in sea water using Matthew's (1939) tables. Onshore topographic contours were generated by computer from a modified version of 3-arc-second elevation data provided by the Defense Mapping Agency. The United States digital shoreline was obtained from the NOAA, NOS, Nautical Charting Division, National Atlas files. The coastline of Canada was digitized from Canadian Hydrographic Service bathymetric maps. The primary source of names of the sea floor features was the "Gazetteer of Undersea Features" (Defense Mapping Agency, 1990). Acknowledgments Christopher Hines assisted in the construction of the digital data bases. Reviews and suggestions by Edward C. Escowitz and Florence Wong and advice provided by Will Stettner regarding the cartographic design substantially improved the quality of this map. References Cited Chase, T.E., and Menard, H.W., 1971, Bathymetric atlas of the northeastern Pacific Ocean: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office Publication 1303, scale 1:2,000,000 at 33° latitude, 48 p. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, and Normark, W.R., 1975, Oceanographic data of the Monterey Deep Sea Fan: San Diego, University of California, Institute of Marine Resources Publication TR 58, scale 1:898,524 at 35° latitude. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R., Miller, C.P., Seekins, B.A., and Young, J.D., 1981, Offshore topography of the Western United States between 32° and 49° North latitudes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-443, scale 1:864,518 at 38° latitude, 2 sheets. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1967a, Santa Barbara to Huntington Beach : Coast and Geodetic Survey Bathymetric Map 1206N-15, scale 1:250,000. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1967b, Southwest of Santa Rosa Island: Coast and Geodetic Survey Bathymetric Map 1306N-19, scale 1:250,000. Defense Mapping Agency, 1990, Gazetteer of undersea features (4th ed.): Washington, D.C., Defense Mapping Agency. Matthews, D.J., 1939, Tables of the velocity of sound in pure water and sea water (2d ed.): London, Admiralty, Hydrographic Department, H.D. 282, 52 p. National Ocean Survey, 1975a, Hungington Beach to Punta Sal Si Puedes: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1206N-16, scale 1:250,000. National Ocean Survey, 1975b, Cape San Martin to Point Conception: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1306N-20, scale 1:250,000. index map for I-2089-A

California↗

USGS2008

Enhanced sidescan-sonar imagery, north-central Long Island Sound

The U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection have been working cooperatively to map the sea-floor geology within Long Island Sound. Sidescan-sonar imagery collected during three NOAA hydrographic surveys (H11043, H11044, and H11045) was used to interpret the surficial-sediment distribution and sedimentary environments within the Sound. The original sidescan-sonar imagery generated by NOAA was used to evaluate hazards to navigation, which does not require consistent tonal matching throughout the survey. In order to fully utilize these data for geologic interpretation, artifacts within the imagery, primarily due to sidescan-system settings (for example, gain changes), processing techniques (for example, lack of across-track normalization) and environmental noise (for example, sea state), need to be minimized. Sidescan-sonar imagery from surveys H11043, H11044, and H11045 in north-central Long Island Sound was enhanced by matching the grayscale tones between adjacent sidescan-sonar lines to decrease the patchwork effect caused by numerous artifacts and to provide a more coherent sidescan-sonar image for use in geologic interpretation.

New York, Connecticut↗

USGS1992

Map showing bottom topography of the Pacific Continental Margin, Cape Mendocino to Point Conception

All contours, geographic outlines, and political boundaries shown on this map of the bottom topography, or bathymetry, of the Pacific continental margin between 34? and 41? N. latitudes were plotted from digital data bases in the library of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint Office for Mapping and Research (JOMAR). These digital data were obtained and compiled from many sources; consequently, data quality varies within particular data bases as well as from one data base to another. Bathymetric contours were digitized from a map compiled by Chase and others (1981) and from the unpublished large scale versions of that map (T.E. Chase, unpub. maps, 1981). Data for the area seaward of the continental slope (~2000 m depth) were obtained primarily from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (C&GS) 1955 Pacific Exploratory Survey, a systematic and detailed (~8 -nmi trackline spacing) survey between Mexico and Canada. The USGS provided data from cruises S3-78-NC, S15-79-NC, L2-77-NC, Ll0-76-NC, and Bartlett 72. Data were also obtained from Scripps Institution of Oceanography cruises Merazine, Blue Flash, Kayak B, Scan I, and Seven Tow (Chase and Menard, 1971; Chase and others, 1975; Wilde and others, 1976; Wilde and others, 1978). The 200-m contour was derived from the National Ocean Survey charts 1306N-20 (1975), 1307N-l1B (1974a), 1307N-18B (1974b), and C&GS chart 1308N-12 (1969). Sea-floor depths were corrected for sound velocity in sea water using Matthew's (1939) tables. Onshore topographic contours were generated by computer from a modified version of 3-arc-second elevation data provided by the Defense Mapping Agency. The United States digital shoreline was obtained from the NOAA, NOS, Nautical Charting Division, National Atlas files. The coastline of Canada was digitized from Canadian Hydrographic Service bathymetric maps. The primary source of names of the sea floor features was the "Gazetteer of Undersea Features" (Defense Mapping Agency, 1990). Acknowledgments Christopher Hines assisted in the construction and verification of the digital data bases. Reviews and suggestions by Edward C. Escowitz and Florence Wong and advice provided by Will Stettner regarding the cartographic design substantially improved the quality of this map. References Cited Chase, T.E., and Menard, H.W., 1971, Bathymetric atlas of the northeastern Pacific Ocean: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office Publication 1303, scale 1:2,000,000 at 33° latitude, 48 p. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, and Normark, W.R., 1975, Oceanographic data of the Monterey Deep Sea Fan: San Diego, University of California, Institute of Marine Resources Publication TR 58, scale 1:898,524 at 35° latitude. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R., Miller, C.P., Seekins, B.A., and Young, J.D., 1981, Offshore topography of the Western United States between 32° and 49° North latitudes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-443, scale 1:864,518 at 38° latitude, 2 sheets. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1969, Point St. George to Point Delgada: Coast and Geodetic Survey Bathymetric Map 1308N-12, scale 1:250,000. Defense Mapping Agency, 1990, Gazetteer of undersea features (4th ed.): Washington, D.C., Defense Mapping Agency. Matthews, D.J., 1939, Tables of the velocity of sound in pure water and sea water (2d ed.): London, Admiralty, Hydrographic Department, H.D. 282, 52 p. National Ocean Survey, 1974a, Vicinity Pt. Sur to Pt. Reyes: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1307N-11B, scale 1:250,000. National Ocean Survey, 1974b, Pt. Reyes to Tolo Bank: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1307N-18B, scale 1:250,000. National Ocean Survey, 1975, Cape San Martin to Point Conception: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1306N-20, scale 1:250,000. Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R., and Chase, T.E., 1976, Oceanographic data off central California 37° to 40° North including the Delgada Deep Sea Fan: Berkeley, University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Publication 92, scale 1 :864,581 at 38° latitude. Wilde, Pat, Chase, T.E., Holmes, M.L., Normark, W.R., Thomas, J.A., McCulloch, D.S., and Kulm, L.D., 1978, Oceanographic data off northern California-southern Oregon 40° to 43° North including the Gorda Deep Sea Fan: Berkeley, University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Publication 251, scale 1:815,482 at 42° latitude.

IMAP↗

USGS1992

Map showing bottom topography of the Pacific Continental Margin, Strait of Juan de Fuca to Cape Mendocino

All contours, geographic outlines, and political boundaries shown on this map of the bottom topography, or bathymetry, of the Pacific continental margin between 34° and 41° N. latitudes were plotted from digital data bases in the library of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Joint Office for Mapping and Research (JOMAR). These digital data were obtained and compiled from many sources; consequently, data quality varies within particular data bases as well as from one data base to another. Bathymetric contours were digitized from a map compiled by Chase and others (1981) and from the unpublished large scale versions of that map (T.E. Chase, unpub. maps, 1981). Data for the area seaward of the continental slope (~2000 m depth) were obtained primarily from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (C&GS) 1955 Pacific Exploratory Survey, a systematic and detailed (~8 -nmi trackline spacing) survey between Mexico and Canada. The USGS provided data from cruises S3-78-NC, S15-79-NC, L2-77-NC, Ll0-76-NC, and Bartlett 72. Data were also obtained from Scripps Institution of Oceanography cruises Merazine, Blue Flash, Kayak B, Scan I, and Seven Tow (Chase and Menard, 1971; Chase and others, 1975; Wilde and others, 1976; Wilde and others, 1978). The 200-m contour was derived from the National Ocean Survey charts 1306N-20 (1975), 1307N-l1B (1974a), 1307N-18B (1974b), and C&GS chart 1308N-12 (1969). Sea-floor depths were corrected for sound velocity in sea water using Matthew's (1939) tables. Onshore topographic contours were generated by computer from a modified version of 3-arc-second elevation data provided by the Defense Mapping Agency. The United States digital shoreline was obtained from the NOAA, NOS, Nautical Charting Division, National Atlas files. The coastline of Canada was digitized from Canadian Hydrographic Service bathymetric maps. The primary source of names of the sea floor features was the "Gazetteer of Undersea Features" (Defense Mapping Agency, 1990). Acknowledgments Christopher Hines assisted in the construction and verification of the digital data bases. Reviews and suggestions by Edward C. Escowitz and Florence Wong and advice provided by Will Stettner regarding the cartographic design substantially improved the quality of this map. References Cited Chase, T.E., and Menard, H.W., 1971, Bathymetric atlas of the northeastern Pacific Ocean: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office Publication 1303, scale 1:2,000,000 at 33° latitude, 48 p. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, and Normark, W.R., 1975, Oceanographic data of the Monterey Deep Sea Fan: San Diego, University of California, Institute of Marine Resources Publication TR 58, scale 1:898,524 at 35° latitude. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R., Miller, C.P., Seekins, B.A., and Young, J.D., 1981, Offshore topography of the Western United States between 32° and 49° North latitudes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-443, scale 1:864,518 at 38° latitude, 2 sheets Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1969, Point St. George to Point Delgada: Coast and Geodetic Survey Bathymetric Map 1308N-12, scale 1:250,000. Defense Mapping Agency, 1990, Gazetteer of undersea features (4th ed.): Washington, D.C., Defense Mapping Agency. Matthews, D.J., 1939, Tables of the velocity of sound in pure water and sea water (2d ed.): London, Admiralty, Hydrographic Department, H.D. 282, 52 p. National Ocean Survey, 1974a, Vicinity Pt. Sur to Pt. Reyes: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1307N-11B, scale 1:250,000. National Ocean Survey, 1974b, Pt. Reyes to Tolo Bank: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1307N-18B, scale 1:250,000. National Ocean Survey, 1975, Cape San Martin to Point Conception: National Ocean Survey Bathymetric Map 1306N-20, scale 1:250,000. Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R., and Chase, T.E., 1976, Oceanographic data off central California 37° to 40° North including the Delgada Deep Sea Fan: Berkeley, University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Publication 92, scale 1 :864,581 at 38° latitude. Wilde, Pat, Chase, T.E., Holmes, M.L., Normark, W.R., Thomas, J.A., McCulloch, D.S., and Kulm, L.D., 1978, Oceanographic data off northern California-southern Oregon 40° to 43° North including the Gorda Deep Sea Fan: Berkeley, University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Publication 251, scale 1:815,482 at 42° latitude.

IMAP↗