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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS2016

Documentation and hydrologic analysis of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey, October 29–30, 2012

In 2012, a late season tropical depression developed into a tropical storm and later a hurricane. The hurricane, named “Hurricane Sandy,” gained strength to a Category 3 storm on October 25, 2012, and underwent several transitions on its approach to the mid-Atlantic region of the eastern coast of the United States. By October 28, 2012, Hurricane Sandy had strengthened into the largest hurricane ever recorded in the North Atlantic and was tracking parallel to the east coast of United States, heading toward New Jersey. On October 29, 2012, the storm turned west-northwest and made landfall near Atlantic City, N.J. The high winds and wind-driven storm surge caused massive damage along the entire coastline of New Jersey. Millions of people were left without power or communication networks. Many homes were completely destroyed. Sand dunes were eroded, and the barrier island at Mantoloking was breached, connecting the ocean with Barnegat Bay. Several days before the storm made landfall in New Jersey, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) made a decision to deploy a temporary network of storm-tide sensors and barometric pressure sensors from Virginia to Maine to supplement the existing USGS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) networks of permanent tide monitoring stations. After the storm made landfall, the USGS conducted a sensor data recovery and high-water-mark collection campaign in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Peak storm-tide elevations documented at USGS tide gages, tidal crest-stage gages, temporary storm sensor locations, and high-water-mark sites indicate the area from southern Monmouth County, N.J., north through Raritan Bay, N.J., had the highest peak storm-tide elevations during this storm. The USGS tide gages at Raritan River at South Amboy and Raritan Bay at Keansburg, part of the New Jersey Tide Telemetry System, each recorded peak storm-tide elevations of greater than 13 feet (ft)—more than 5 ft higher than the previously recorded period-of-record maximum. A comparison of peak storm-tide elevations to preliminary FEMA Coastal Flood Insurance Study flood elevations indicated that these areas experienced the highest recurrence intervals along the coast of New Jersey. Analysis showed peak storm-tide elevations exceeded the 100-year FEMA flood elevations in many parts of Middlesex, Union, Essex, Hudson, and Bergen Counties, and peak storm-tide elevations at many locations in Monmouth County exceeded the 500-year recurrence interval. A level 1 HAZUS (HAZards United States) analysis was done for the counties in New Jersey affected by flooding to estimate total building stock losses. The aggregated total building stock losses estimated by HAZUS for New Jersey, on the basis of the final inundation verified by USGS high-water marks, was almost $19 billion. A comparison of Hurricane Sandy with historic coastal storms showed that peak storm-tide elevations associated with Hurricane Sandy exceeded most of the previously documented elevations associated with the storms of December 1992, March 1962, September 1960, and September 1944 at many coastal communities in New Jersey. This scientific investigation report was prepared in cooperation with FEMA to document flood processes and flood damages resulting from this storm and to assist in future flood mitigation actions in New Jersey.

New Jersey↗

USGS1982

Earthquake history of the United States

This publication is a history of the prominent earthquakes in the United States from historical times through 1970. It supersedes all previous editions with the same or similar titles (see page ii) and, in addition to updating earthquake listings through 1970, contains several additions and corrections to previous issues. It also brings together under a common cover earthquake data previously listed in two separate reports: Earthquake History of the United States, Part I, Stronger Earthquakes of the United States (Exclusive of California and Western Nevada) and Earthquake History of the United States, Part II, Stronger Earthquakes of California and Western Nevada . Another addition to this publication is the inclusion of a section describing earthquakes in the Puerto Rico region. For the purpose of listing and describing earthquakes, the United States has been divided into nine regions: (1) Northeastern Region, which includes New England and New York activity and observations of the principal earthquakes of eastern Canada; (2) Eastern Region, including the central Appalachian seismic region activity and the area near Charleston, S.C.; (3) Central Region, which consists of the area between the region just described and the Rocky Mountains; (4) Western Mountain Region, which includes all remaining states except those on the Pacific coast; (5) Washington and Oregon; (6) Alaska; (7) Hawaii; (8) Puerto Rico; and (9) California and Western Nevada. This arrangement has been made chiefly with reference to the natural seismic divisions. It also is a convenient arrangement because there are only three states where there is an important division of earthquake activity: In Tennessee, there are quite distinct areas at opposite ends of the state that fall into different regions. Only central and eastern Nevada are included in the Western Mountain Region, as the activity of the western part is closely associated with that of California. Some earthquake activity has occurred in the part of Texas located in the Western Mountain Region. The map facing page 1 shows locations of all earthquakes in the regions that follow. A small map showing the area covered by each region immediately precedes the résumé of each chapter (except for the Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii regions). The seismic risk map below was developed in January 1969 for the conterminous United States by Dr. S. T. Algermissen of NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratories. Subject to revision as continuing research warrants, it is an updated edition of a map divides the United States into four zones: Zone 0, areas with no reasonable expectancy of earthquake damage; Zone 1, expected minor damage; Zone 2, expected moderate damage; and Zone 3, major destructive earthquakes may occur.

Publication↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Imperviousness Layer Tile 1, Northwest United States: IMPV01_1

This 30-meter resolution data set represents the imperviousness layer for the conterminous United States for the 2001 time period. The data have been arranged into four tiles to facilitate timely display and manipulation within a Geographic Information System, browse graphic: nlcd01-partition. The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer and others (2004) and http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp.. The NLCD 2001 was created by partitioning the United States into mapping-zones. A total of 68 mapping-zones browse graphic: nlcd01-mappingzones.jpg were delineated within the conterminous United States based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge-matching features, and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Mapping-zones encompass the whole or parts of several states. Questions about the NLCD mapping zones can be directed to the NLCD 2001 Land Cover Mapping Team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

Data Series↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Imperviousness Layer Tile 2, northeast United States: IMPV01_2

northeast United States↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Imperviousness Layer Tile 3, Southwest United States: IMPV01_3

Data Series↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Imperviousness Layer Tile 4, Southeast United States: IMPV01_4

Data Series↗

USGS2006

Climate scenarios for California

Possible future climate changes in California are investigated from a varied set of climate change model simulations. These simulations, conducted by three state-of-the-art global climate models, provide trajectories from three greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios. These scenarios and the resulting climate simulations are not “predictions,” but rather are a limited sample from among the many plausible pathways that may affect California’s climate. Future GHG concentrations are uncertain because they depend on future social, political, and technological pathways, and thus the IPCC has produced four “families” of emission scenarios. To explore some of these uncertainties, emissions scenarios A2 (a medium-high emissions) and B1 (low emissions) were selected from the current IPCC Fourth climate assessment, which provides several recent model simulations driven by A2 and B1 emissions. The global climate model simulations addressed here were from PCM1, the Parallel Climate Model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) group, and CM2.1 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). As part of the scenarios assessment, a statistical technique using properties of historical weather data was employed to correct model biases and “downscale” the global-model simulation of future climates to a finer level of detail, onto a grid of approximately 7 miles (12 kilometers), which is more suitable for impact studies at the scales needed by California decision makers. In current climate-change simulations, temperatures over California warm significantly during the twenty-first century, with temperature increases from approximately +3ºF (1.5ºC) in the lower emissions scenario (B1) within the less responsive model (PCM1) to +8ºF (4.5ºC) in the higher emissions scenario (A2) within the more responsive model (CM2.1). Three of the simulations (all except the low-emission scenario run of the low-response model) exhibit more warming in summer than in winter. In all of the simulations, most precipitation continues to occur in winter, with virtually all derived from North Pacific winter storms. Relatively little change in overall precipitation is projected. Climate warming has a profound influence in diminishing snow accumulations, because there is more rain and less snow, and earlier snowmelt. These snow losses increase as the warming increases, so that they are most severe under climate changes projected by the more sensitive model with the higher GHG emissions.

California↗

USGS2003

Simulation of streamflow and water quality in the Brandywine Creek subbasin of the Christina River basin, Pennsylvania and Delaware, 1994-98

The Christina River Basin drains 565 mi 2 (square miles) in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Water from the basin is used for recreation, drinking-water supply, and to support aquatic life. The Christina River Basin includes the major subbasins of Brandywine Creek, Red Clay Creek, White Clay Creek, and Christina River. The Brandywine Creek is the largest of the subbasins and drains an area of 327 mi 2 . Water quality in some parts of the Christina River Basin is impaired and does not support designated uses of the streams. A multi-agency water-quality management strategy included a modeling component to evaluate the effects of point and nonpoint-source contributions of nutrients and suspended sediment on streamwater quality. To assist in nonpoint-source evaluation, four independent models, one for each of the four main subbasins of the Christina River Basin, were developed and calibrated using the model code Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF). Water-quality data for model calibration were collected in each of the four main subbasins and in small subbasins predominantly covered by one land use following a nonpoint-source monitoring plan. Under this plan, stormflow and base-flow samples were collected during 1998 at six sites in the Brandywine Creek subbasin and five sites in the other subbasins. The HSPF model for the Brandywine Creek Basin simulates streamflow, suspended sediment, and the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus. In addition, the model simulates water temperature, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and plankton as secondary objectives needed to support the sediment and nutrient simulations. For the model, the basin was subdivided into 35 reaches draining areas that ranged from 0.6 to 18 mi 2 . Three of the reaches contain regulated reservoir. Eleven different pervious land uses and two impervious land uses were selected for simulation. Land-use areas were determined from 1995 land-use data. The predominant land uses in the basin are forested, agricultural, residential, and urban. The hydrologic component of the model was run at an hourly time step and calibrated using streamflow data for eight U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow-measurement stations for the period of January 1, 1994, through October 29, 1998. Daily precipitation data for three National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) gages and hourly data for one NOAA gage were used for model input. The difference between observed and simulated streamflow volume ranged from -2.7 to 3.9 percent for the nearly 5-year period at the eight calibration sites. Annual differences between observed and simulated streamflow generally were greater than the overall error. For example, at a site near the bottom of the basin (drainage area of 237 mi 2 ), annual differences between observed and simulated streamflow ranged from -14.0 to 18.8 percent and the overall error for the 5-year period was 1.0 percent. Calibration errors for 36 storm periods at the eight calibration sites for total volume, low-flow-recession rate, 50-percent lowest flows, 10-percent highest flows, and storm peaks were within the recommended criteria of 20 percent or less. Much of the error in simulating storm events on an hourly time step can be attributed to uncertainty in the rainfall data. The water-quality component of the model was calibrated using monitoring data collected at six USGS streamflow-measurement stations with variable water quality monitoring periods ending October 1998. Because of availability, monitoring data for suspended solids concentrations were used as surrogates for suspended-sediment concentrations, although suspended-solids data may underestimate suspended sediment and affect apparent accuracy of the suspended-sediment simulation. Comparison of observed to simulated loads for two to six individual storms in 1998 at each of the six monitoring sites indicate that simulation error is commonly as large as an order of magnitude for suspended sediment and nutrients. The simulation error tends to be smaller for dissolved nutrients than for particulate nutrients. Errors of 40 percent or less for monthly or annual values indicate a fair to good water-quality calibration according to recommended criteria, with much larger errors possible for individual events. Assessment of the water-quality calibration under stormﬂow conditions is limited by the relatively small amount of available water-quality data in the basin. Duration curves for simulated and reported sediment concentration at Brandywine Creek at Wilmington, Del., are similar, indicating model performance is better when evaluated over longer periods than when evaluated on individual storm events.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

The surface elevation table and marker horizon technique: A protocol for measuring wetland elevation dynamics, narrative (Version 2.0)

The National Park Service (NPS), in response to the growing evidence and awareness of the effects of climate change on federal lands, determined that monitoring wetland elevation change is a top priority in North Atlantic Coastal parks (Stevens et al. 2010). As a result, the NPS Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network (NCBN) in collaboration with colleagues from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have developed a protocol for monitoring wetland elevation change and other processes important for determining the viability of wetland communities. Although focused on North Atlantic Coastal parks, this document is applicable to all coastal and inland wetland regions. Wetlands exist within a narrow range of elevation that is influenced by local hydrologic conditions. For tidally influenced coastal wetlands, local hydrologic conditions may be changing as sea levels continue to rise. As sea level rises, coastal wetland systems may either a) build elevation to maintain favorable hydrologic conditions for their survival or b) become increasingly inundated beyond their physiological tolerance resulting in an eventual conversion to open water. A better understanding of these processes will help to determine the present and future viability of coastal wetlands managed by the NPS and can help address measures to ensure these communities exist into the future. This protocol provides the reader with instructions and guidelines on designing a monitoring plan or study to: Quantify elevation change in wetlands with the Surface Elevation Table (SET); understand the processes that influence elevation change, including vertical accretion (SET and Marker Horizon methods); survey the wetland surface and SET mark to a common reference datum to allow for comparing sample stations to each other and to local tidal datums; survey the SET mark to monitor its relative stability; and establish water level equipment to characterize the hydrology and tidal datums for a particular wetland site or sites. The protocol is divided into two documents: The narrative (this document) presents an overview of all aspects of monitoring wetland elevation dynamics, and a document of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with detailed instructions on the design, installation, data collection, and data management in support of monitoring changes in wetland elevation.

Science Report↗

USGS1978

Arctic continental shelf morphology related to sea-ice zonation, Beaufort Sea, Alaska

Landsat-1 and NOAA satellite imagery for the winter 1972–1973, and a variety of ice and sea-floor data were used to study sea-ice zonation and dynamics and their relation to bottom morphology and geology on the Beaufort Sea continental shelf of arctic Alaska. In early winter the location of the boundary between undeformed fast ice and westward-drifting pack ice of the Pacific Gyre is controlled by major coastal promontories. Pronounced linear pressure- and shear-ridges, as well as hummock fields, form along this boundary and are stabilized by grounding, generally between the 10- and 20-m isobaths. Slippage along this boundary occurs intermittently at or seaward of the grounded ridges, forming new grounded ridges in a widening zone, the stamukhi zone, which by late winter extends out to the 40-m isobath. Between intermittent events along the stamukhi zone, pack-ice drift and slippage is continuous along the shelf edge, at average rates of 3–10 km/day. Whether slippage occurs along the stamukhi zone or along the shelf edge, it is restricted to a zone several hundred meters wide, and ice seaward of the slip face moves at uniform rates without discernible drag effects. A causal relationship is seen between the spatial distribution of major ice-ridge systems and offshore shoals downdrift of major coastal promontories. The shoals appear to have migrated shoreward under the influence of ice up to 400 m in the last 25 years. The sea floor seaward of these shoals within the stamukhi zone shows high ice-gouge density, large incision depths, and a high degree of disruption of internal sedimentary structures. The concentration of large ice ridges and our sea floor data in the stamukhi zone indicate that much of the available marine energy is expended here, while the inner shelf and coast, where the relatively undeformed fast ice grows, are sheltered. There is evidence that anomalies in the overall arctic shelf profile are related to sea-ice zonation, ice dynamics, and bottom processes. A proposed ice zonation, including zones of (1) bottom-fast ice, (2) floating fast ice, (3) stamukhi, and (4) seasonal pack ice, emphasizes ice interaction with the shelf surface and differs from previous zonation. Certain aspects of the results reported here are directly applicable to planned offshore developments in the Prudhoe Bay oil field. Properly placed artificial structures similar to offshore shoals should be able to withstand the forces of the ice, serve to modify the observed ice zonation, and might be used to make the environment less hostile to human activities.

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Analysis of storm-tide impacts from Hurricane Sandy in New York

The hybrid cyclone-nor’easter known as Hurricane Sandy affected the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States during October 28-30, 2012, causing extensive coastal flooding. Prior to storm landfall, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) deployed a temporary monitoring network from Virginia to Maine to record the storm tide and coastal flooding generated by Hurricane Sandy. This sensor network augmented USGS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) networks of permanent monitoring sites that also documented storm surge. Continuous data from these networks were supplemented by an extensive post-storm high-water-mark (HWM) flagging and surveying campaign. The sensor deployment and HWM campaign were conducted under a directed mission assignment by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The need for hydrologic interpretation of monitoring data to assist in flood-damage analysis and future flood mitigation prompted the current analysis of Hurricane Sandy by the USGS under this FEMA mission assignment. The analysis of storm-tide impacts focused on three distinct but related aspects of coastal flooding from Hurricane Sandy, including flooding inland along the tidal reach of the Hudson River. These aspects are (1) comparisons of peak storm-tide elevations to those of historical storms and to annual exceedance probabilities, (2) assessments of storm-surge characteristics, and (3) comparisons of maps of inundation extent that were derived from differing amounts of available storm-tide data. Most peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were greater than about 9.5 feet (ft) above North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were compared with data for the intense nor’easter of December 11–13, 1992, and Hurricane Irene (August 27–28, 2011), which weakened to a tropical storm before arriving in New York. Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were higher than those from the December 1992 nor’easter at 24 of 27 sites; most differences were greater than about 0.7 ft or 9 percent (above the historical storm tide). Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were higher than those from Tropical Storm Irene at all sites; most differences were greater than about 2.5 ft or 48 percent. Data from permanent and temporary monitoring sites and HWM sites were compared with corresponding FEMA flood elevations for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities in New York. Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy had annual exceedance probabilities less than or equal to 1 percent and (or) greater than 0.2 percent at a plurality of sites—184 of 413. Peak storm-tide elevations greater than or equal to the 0.2-percent flood elevation accounted for 81 of 413 sites. Peak storm-tide elevations less than the 10-percent flood elevation accounted for only 10 of 413 sites. Data from selected permanent monitoring sites in the USGS and NOAA networks were used to assess storm-surge magnitude associated with the peak storm tide, and magnitude and timing of the peak storm surge. Most magnitudes of the peak storm surge were greater than about 8.3 ft, and most magnitudes of the storm surge component of the peak storm tide were greater than about 7.8 ft. Timing of peak storm surge arrival with respect to local phase of tide controlled where the most extreme peak storm-tide levels and coastal flooding occurred. This finding has bearing not only for locations impacted by the highest storm tides from Hurricane Sandy, but also for those that had the greatest storm surges yet were spared the worst flooding because of fortuitous timing during this storm. Results of FEMA Hazus Program (HAZUS) flood loss analyses performed for New York counties were compared for extents of storm-tide inundation from Hurricane Sandy mapped (1) pre-storm, (2) on November 11, 2012, and (3) on February 14, 2013. The resulting depictions of estimated total building stock losses document how differing amounts of available USGS data affect the resolution and accuracy of storm-tide inundation extents. Using the most accurate results from the final (February 14, 2013) inundation extent, estimated losses range from $380 million to $5.9 billion for individual New York counties; total estimated aggregate losses are about $23 billion for all New York counties. Quality of the inundation extents used in HAZUS analyses has a substantial effect on final results. These findings can be used to inform future post-storm reconstruction planning and estimation of insurance claims.

New York↗

USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗

USGS2007

Increasing resiliency to natural hazards - A strategic plan for the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project in Southern California

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is initiating a new project designed to improve resiliency to natural hazards in southern California through the application of science to community decision making and emergency response. The Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project will assist the region’s communities to reduce their risk from natural hazards by directing new and existing research towards the community’s needs, improving monitoring technology, producing innovative products, and improving dissemination of the results. The natural hazards to be investigated in this project include coastal erosion, earthquakes, floods, landslides, tsunamis, and wildfires. Americans are more at risk from natural hazards now than at any other time in our Nation’s history. Southern California, in particular, has one of the Nation’s highest potentials for extreme catastrophic losses due to natural hazards, with estimates of expected losses exceeding $3 billion per year. These losses can only be reduced through the decisions of the southern California community itself. To be effective, these decisions must be guided by the best information about hazards, risk, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The USGS will work with collaborators to set the direction of the research and to create multi-hazard risk frameworks where communities can apply the results of scientific research to their decision-making processes. Partners include state, county, city, and public-lands government agencies, public and private utilities, companies with a significant impact and presence in southern California, academic researchers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and local emergency response agencies. Prior to the writing of this strategic plan document, three strategic planning workshops were held in February and March 2006 at the USGS office in Pasadena to explore potential relationships. The goal of these planning sessions was to determine the external organizations’ needs for mitigation efforts before potential natural hazard events, and response efforts during and after the event. On the basis of input from workshop participants, four priority areas were identified for future research to address. They are (1) helping decision makers design planning scenarios, (2) improving upon the mapping of multiple hazards in urban areas, (3) providing real-time information from monitoring networks, and (4) integrating information in a risk and decision-making analysis. Towards this end, short-term and out-year goals have been outlined with the priorities in mind. First-year goals are (1) to engage the user community to establish the structures and processes for communications and interactions, (2) to develop a program to create scenarios of anticipated disasters, beginning in the first year with a scenario of a southern San Andreas earthquake that triggers secondary hazards, (3) to compile existing datasets of geospatial data, and (4) to target research efforts to support more complete and robust products in future years. Both the first-year and out-year goals have been formulated around a working-group structure that builds on existing research strengths within the USGS. The project is intended to demonstrate how developments in methodology and products can lead to improvement in our management of natural hazards in an urban environment for application across the Nation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

Topobathymetric model of Mobile Bay, Alabama

Topobathymetric Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are a merged rendering of both topography (land elevation) and bathymetry (water depth) that provides a seamless elevation product useful for inundation mapping, as well as for other earth science applications, such as the development of sediment-transport, sea-level rise, and storm-surge models. This 1/9-arc-second (approximately 3 meters) resolution model of Mobile Bay, Alabama was developed using multiple topographic and bathymetric datasets, collected on different dates. The topographic data were obtained primarily from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) (http://ned.usgs.gov/) at 1/9-arc-second resolution; USGS Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL) data (2 meters) (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/400/); and topographic lidar data (2 meters) and Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey (CHARTS) lidar data (2 meters) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastallidar/). Bathymetry was derived from digital soundings obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geodas/geodas.html) and from water-penetrating lidar sources, such as EAARL and CHARTS. Mobile Bay is ecologically important as it is the fourth largest estuary in the United States. The Mobile and Tensaw Rivers drain into the bay at the northern end with the bay emptying into the Gulf of Mexico at the southern end. Dauphin Island (a barrier island) and the Fort Morgan Peninsula form the mouth of Mobile Bay. Mobile Bay is 31 miles (50 kilometers) long by a maximum width of 24 miles (39 kilometers) with a total area of 413 square miles (1,070 square kilometers). The vertical datum of the Mobile Bay topobathymetric model is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). All the topographic datasets were originally referenced to NAVD 88 and no transformations were made to these input data. The NGDC hydrographic, multibeam, and trackline surveys were transformed from mean low water (MLW) or mean lower low water (MLLW) to NAVD 88 using VDatum (http://vdatum.noaa.gov). VDatum is a tool developed by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) that performs transformations among tidal, ellipsoid-based, geoid-based, and orthometric datums using calibrated hydrodynamic models. The vertical accuracy of the input topographic data varied depending on the input source. Because the input elevation data were derived primarily from lidar, the vertical accuracy ranges from 6 to 20 centimeters in root mean square error (RMSE). he horizontal datum of the Mobile Bay topobathymetric model is the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), geographic coordinates. All the topographic and bathymetric datasets were originally referenced to NAD 83, and no transformations were made to the input data. The bathymetric surveys were downloaded referenced to NAD 83 geographic, and therefore no horizontal transformations were required. The topbathymetric model of Mobile Bay and detailed metadata can be obtained from the USGS Web sites: http://nationalmap.gov/.

Alabama↗

USGS2025

Benthic habitat map of Olowalu Reef, Maui, Hawaii—Geomorphological structure, biological cover, and geologic zonation determined with spectral, lidar, and acoustic data

The fringing coral reef off Olowalu, Maui, Hawaii, has been identified as a local conservation priority site. In 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) produced a benthic habitat map of the Hawaiian Islands that was used as a foundation for this study. To support place-based management of the reef in the future, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapped the geologic zone, major and dominant geomorphological structure, biological cover type, and percent of biological cover for 11 square kilometers (km 2 ) of Olowalu Reef at a minimum mapping unit (MMU) of 100 square meters (m 2 ) to create a benthic habitat map. Heads-up digitization was employed on 0.50-meter (m) natural color satellite orthoimagery with ancillary 1-m acoustic backscatter imagery from single-scan sonar (sound navigation and ranging). A 1-m, 4-m, and 8-m digital bathymetric model (DBM) was interpolated from bathymetric lidar (light detection and ranging), and various geomorphometric layers derived from the DBMs were used for habitat interpretation. Still-frame imagery of the seafloor extracted from vessel-towed underwater video transects on Olowalu Reef served as ground validation points ( n =870) during active mapping and accuracy assessment points ( n =216) for thematic accuracy assessment. Thematic accuracy was cross-validated by the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources. Final thematic accuracy was 88.8 percent for major structure, 85.6 percent for dominant structure, 86.0 percent for major biological cover, and 78.6 percent for type and percent of major biological cover. Reef and hardbottom constituted 52 percent of the total mapped habitat, comprising mostly aggregate reef (31 percent) and pavement (11 percent), with large swaths of spur-and-groove (9 percent). Of this hardbottom, 17 percent was covered with moderate (10 to <50 percent) coral and 27 percent with high coral cover (50 to <90 percent). High (50 to <90 percent) macroalgae cover dominated the continuous sand sheets in offshore bank/shelf zones. The map created in this study supplements the NOAA 2007 map and expands on the observations made by USGS sampling of the reef. The NOAA 2007 map and our map differed in total areal extent by a negligible 6 m 2 and were in general thematic agreement. Our map is intended to serve as a baseline for public access, general research, local-level management, and reef change for future studies.

Hawaii↗

USGS2010

Environmental Assessment for a Marine Geophysical Survey of Parts of the Arctic Ocean, August-September 2010

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), individual nations? sovereign rights extend to 200 nautical miles (n.mi.) (370 km) offshore or to a maritime boundary in an area called the continental shelf. These rights include jurisdiction over all resources in the water column and on and beneath the seabed. Article 76 of UNCLOS also establishes the criteria to determine areas beyond the 200 n.mi. (370 km) limit that could be defined as ?extended continental shelf,? where a nation could extend its sovereign rights over the seafloor and sub-seafloor (As used in UNCLOS, ?continental shelf? refers to a legally defined region of the sea floor rather than a morphological shallow-water area adjacent to continents commonly used by geologists and hydrographers.). This jurisdiction provided in Article 76 includes resources on and below the seafloor but not in the water column. The United States has been acquiring data to determine the outer limits of its extended continental shelf in the Arctic and has a vested interest in declaring and receiving international recognition of the reach of its extended continental shelf. The U.S. collaborated with Canada in 2008 and 2009 on extended continental shelf studies in the Arctic Ocean. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Cutter Healy worked with the Canadian Coast Guard ship Louis S. St. Laurent to map the continental shelf beyond 200 n.mi. (370 km) in the Arctic. Each icebreaking vessel contributed different capabilities in order to collect data needed by both nations more efficiently in order to save money, avoid redundancy, and foster cooperation. Generally, the Healy collects bathymetric (sea-floor topography) data and the Louis S. St. Laurent collects seismic reflection profile data. The vessels work in concert when ice conditions are heavy, with one vessel breaking ice for the ship collecting data. The Canadian Environmental Assessments for these projects are available on line at http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/052/details-eng.cfm?pid=38185 (2008) and http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/052/details-eng.cfm?pid=46518 (2009). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) are undertaking a similar partnership again for 2010 in a limited area of U.S. waters during the period between ~10 and 16 August. The survey vessels will then proceed to international or Canadian waters where surveying will proceed until ~3 September, when the two icebreakers will separate to conduct independent work. The survey area of the joint work will be bounded approximately by 145? to 158? W longitude and 71? to 84? N latitude in water depths ranging from ~2,000 to 4,000 m (fig. 1). Ice conditions are expected to range from open water to 10/10 ice cover. The Louis S. St. Laurent will join accompanying vessel Healy in or near the survey area around 10 August to begin the joint survey work. As its energy source, the seismic system aboard Louis S. St. Laurent will employ a 3-airgun array consisting of three Sercel G-airguns. Two guns will have a discharge volume of 500 in3 and the third a discharge volume of 150 in3 for a total array discharge volume of 1,150 in3. The seismic survey will take place in water depths 2,000?4,000 m. This airgun array is identical to the system used in the 2008 and 2009 field programs by the Geological Survey of Canada. The USGS requested that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to authorize the incidental, that is, not intentional, harassment of small numbers of cetaceans and seals should this occur during the seismic survey in U.S. waters. USGS is also consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding concerns about disturbance to walruses and polar bears. Through informal consultation with the Office of Protected Resources with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USGS proposes that no ESA-listed marine species?bowhead, fin, humpback or sperm whale?w

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Evaluation of long-term trends in hydrologic and water-quality conditions, and estimation of water budgets through 2013, Chester County, Pennsylvania

An evaluation of trends in hydrologic and water quality conditions and estimation of water budgets through 2013 was done by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Chester County Water Resources Authority. Long-term hydrologic, meteorologic, and biologic data collected in Chester County, Pennsylvania, which included streamflow, groundwater levels, surface-water quality, biotic integrity, precipitation, and air temperature were analyzed to determine possible trends or changes in hydrologic conditions. Statistically significant trends were determined by applying the Kendall rank correlation test; the magnitudes of the trends were determined using the Sen slope estimator. Water budgets for eight selected watersheds were updated and a new water budget was developed for the Marsh Creek watershed. An average water budget for Chester County was developed using the eight selected watersheds and the new Marsh Creek water budget. Annual and monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff were analyzed for trends at 10 streamgages. The periods of record at the 10 streamgages ranged from 1961‒2013 to 1988‒2013. The only statistically significant trend for annual mean streamflow was for West Branch Brandywine Creek near Honey Brook, Pa. (01480300) where annual mean streamflow increased 1.6 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) per decade. The greatest increase in monthly mean streamflow was for Brandywine Creek at Chadds Ford, Pa. (01481000) for December; the increase was 47 ft 3 /s per decade. No statistically significant trends in annual mean base flow or runoff were determined for the 10 streamgages. The greatest increase in monthly mean base flow was for Brandywine Creek at Chadds Ford, Pa. (01481000) for December; the increase was 26 ft 3 /s per decade. The magnitude of peaks greater than a base streamflow was analyzed for trends for 12 streamgages. The period of record at the 12 stream gages ranged from 1912‒2012 to 2004–11. Fifty percent of the streamgages showed a small statistically significant increase in peaks greater than the base streamflow. The greatest increase was for Brandywine Creek at Chadds Ford, Pa. (01481000) during 1962‒2012; the increase was 1.8 ft 3 /s per decade. There were no statistically significant trends in the number of floods equal to or greater than the 2-year recurrence interval flood flow. Twenty‒one monitoring wells were evaluated for statistically significant trends in annual mean water level, minimum annual water level, maximum annual water level, and annual range in water-level fluctuations. For four wells, a small statistically significant increase in annual mean water level was determined that ranged from 0.16 to 0.7 feet per decade. There was poor or no correlation between annual mean groundwater levels and annual mean streamflow and base flow. No correlation was determined between annual mean groundwater level and annual precipitation. Despite rapid population growth and land-use change since 1950, there appears to have been little or no detrimental effects on groundwater levels in 21 monitoring wells. Long-term precipitation and temperature data were available from the West Chester (1893‒2013) and Phoenixville, Pa. (1915‒2013) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather stations. No statistically significant trends in annual mean precipitation or annual mean temperature were determined for either station. Both weather stations had a significant decrease in the number of days per year with precipitation greater than or equal to 0.1 inch. Annual mean minimum and maximum temperatures from the NOAA Southeastern Piedmont Climate Division increased 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit (F) per decade between 1896 and 2014. The number of days with a maximum temperature equal to or greater than 90 degrees F increased at West Chester and decreased at Phoenixville. No statistically significant trend was determined for annual snowfall amounts. Data from 1974 to 2013 for three stream water-quality monitors in the Brandywine Creek watershed were evaluated. The monitors are on the West Branch Brandywine Creek at Modena, Pa. (01480617), East Branch Brandywine Creek below Downingtown, Pa. (01480870), and Brandywine Creek at Chadds Ford, Pa. (01481000). Statistically significant upward trends were determined for annual mean specific conductance at all three stations, indicating the total dissolved solids load has been increasing. If the current trend continues, the annual mean specific conductance could almost double from 1974 to 2050. The increase in specific conductance likely is due to increases in chloride concentrations, which have been increasing steadily over time at all three stations. No correlation was found between monthly mean specific conductance and monthly mean streamflow or base flow. Statistically significant upward trends in pH were determined for all three stations. Statistically significant upward trends in stream temperature were determined for East Branch Brandywine Creek below Downingtown, Pa. (01480870) and Brandywine Creek at Chadds Ford, Pa. (01481000). The stream water-quality data indicate substantial increases in the minimum daily dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Brandywine Creek over time. The Chester County Index of Biotic Integrity (CC-IBI) determined for 1998‒2013 was evaluated for the five biological sampling sites collocated with streamgages. CC-IBI scores are based on a 0‒100 scale with higher scores indicating better stream quality. Statistically significant upward trends in the CC-IBI were determined for West Branch Brandywine Creek at Modena, Pa. (01480617) and East Branch Brandywine Creek below Downingtown, Pa. (01480870). No correlation was found between the CC-IBI and streamflow, precipitation, or stream specific conductance, pH, temperature, or dissolved oxygen concentration. A Chester County average water budget was developed using the nine estimated watershed water budgets. Average precipitation was 48.4 inches, and average streamflow was 21.4 inches. Average runoff and base flow were 8.3 and 13.1 inches, respectively, and average evapotranspiration and estimation of errors was 27.2 inches."

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2019

Offshore shallow structure and sediment distribution, Punta Gorda to Point Arena, Northern California

This publication consists of two map sheets that display shallow geologic structure, along with sediment distribution and thickness, for an approximately 150-km-long offshore section of the northern California coast between Punta Gorda and Point Arena. Each map sheet includes three maps at scales of either 1:100,000 or 1:200,000, and together the sheets include 30 figures that contain representative high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The maps and seismic-reflection surveys cover most of the continental shelf in this region. In addition, the maps show the locations of the shelf break and the 3-nautical-mile limit of California’s State Waters. The seismic-reflection data, which are the primary dataset used to develop the maps, were collected to support the California Seafloor Mapping Program, U.S. Geological Survey Offshore Geologic Hazards projects, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Ocean Explorer program. In addition to the two map sheets, this publication includes geographic information system data files of faults, sediment thicknesses, and depths-to-base of sediment The map area includes the northernmost section of the right-lateral San Andreas Fault, which extends offshore from Point Arena in the south to Point Delgada in the north. The San Andreas Fault is the primary structure in the widely distributed plate boundary between the Pacific Plate and the Sierra Nevada–Great Valley Microplate, with estimates of cumulative right slip of as much as up to 450 km. South of Point Delgada, fault-related transtension has resulted in development of the Noyo Basin. North of Point Delgada, the San Andreas Fault transitions into a complex contractional zone in and (or) south of the King Range, including a possible nearshore fault that may connect with the Mattole Canyon Fault. Quaternary sediments and bedrock underlie the shelf. On the seismic-reflection profiles, we digitally traced the thickness and depth of the uppermost seismic-stratigraphic unit, which is a focus of this publication. The upper contact of this unit is the seafloor; the lower contact is a transgressive surface of erosion, a commonly angular, wave-cut unconformity characterized by an upward change to lower amplitude, more diffuse reflections. On the basis of this lower contact, this stratigraphic unit is inferred to have been deposited on the shelf in the last about 21,000 years during the sea-level rise that followed the last major lowstand and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Maps in this publication show both the thickness of this upper sediment unit and the depth to the base of the sediment unit. Within the map region, five different “domains” of post-LGM shelf sediment are delineated on the basis of sediment thickness and coastal geomorphology. Maximum sediment thickness (as much as 67 m) is found in the northern part of the region, along the steep south flank of the King Range. Minimum sediment thickness (areas of exposed bedrock) is found on fault-bounded uplifts, which include Tolo bank and Punta Gorda bank. Mean sediment thickness for the entire shelf in the map area between Punta Gorda and Point Arena is 8.9 m, and total sediment volume is 12,824×10 6 m 3 .

California↗