Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Science Report”

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

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

At least 1,225 records · Page 68Linked to original sources
USGS2019

Data management plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center

The primary mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Mission Area is to collect and disseminate reliable, impartial, and timely information needed to understand the water resources of the Nation, including data on streamflow, groundwater, water quality, water use, and availability. Management of data throughout the entire data lifecycle is necessary to meet the mission and maintain the USGS reputation of producing high-quality data as the Nation’s primary earth-science information agency. This document describes the data management procedures of the USGS Washington Water Science Center, including responsibilities of staff and workflow procedures.

Washington↗
USGS2026

Field methods, quality-assurance, and data management plan for water-quality activities and water-level measurements, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho

Introduction Water-quality activities and water-level measurements conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Project Office coincide with the USGS mission of evaluating the quantity and quality of the Nation’s water resources. The activities are conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Idaho Operations Office. Results of water-quality and hydraulic head research efforts are presented in various USGS and scientific journal publications (refer to Fisher, 2022). These data are stored internally in the Aquarius Time Series and Aquarius Samples databases and are publicly accessible through National Water Quality Monitoring Council (2025) and U.S. Geological Survey (2025). Data collected from our studies are used by researchers, Federal and State agencies, water management and regulatory organizations, as well as the public. This quality assurance plan (QAP) describes the methods and processes for field methods, data collection, data management, data auditing, and equipment management for both the water-quality and water-level programs at the USGS INL Project Office (hereto referred to as INL Project Office). A comprehensive quality assurance (QA) plan ensures that the processes defined in this document will guide the program staff to collect and publish reliable, useful, and defensible data products for stakeholders. This QAP supersedes previous versions of this document and is intended to complement the Quality Assurance and Data Management (QADM) Plan for the Idaho Water Science Center (IDWSC; Christopher Mebane and Lauren Zinsser, written commun., 2024).

Idaho↗
USGS1955

Ground-water hydraulics - A summary of lectures presented by John G. Ferris at short courses conducted by the Ground Water Branch, part 1, Theory

The objective of the Ground Water Branch is to evaluate the occurrence, availability, and quality of ground water. The science of ground-water hydrology is applied toward attaining that goal. Although many ground-water investigations are of a qualitative nature, quantitative studies are necessarily an integral component of the complete evaluation of occurrence and availability. The worth of an aquifer as a fully developed source of water depends largely on two inherent characteristics: its ability to store, and its ability to transmit water. Furthermore, quantitative knowledge of these characteristics facilitates measurement of hydrologic entities such as recharge, leakage, evapotranspiration, etc. It is recognized that these two characteristics, referred to as the coefficients of storage and transmissibility, generally provide the very foundation on which quantitative studies are constructed. Within the science of ground-water hydrology, ground-water hydraulics methods are applied to determine these constats from field data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1999

Index of hydrologic characteristics and data resources for the Gwynns Falls watershed, Baltimore County and Baltimore City, Maryland

The Gwynns Falls watershed has been selected as the primary study area for the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, as part of the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research program. Because the Baltimore Ecosystem Study will be investigating long-term hydrologic changes in the Gwynns Falls watershed, a compilation of existing data resources for the watershed is necessary. This report discusses hydrologic characteristics and presents a compilation of historical data resources for the Gwynns Falls watershed. Tables are presented that list active and discontinued continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, nontidal crest-stage partial-record stations, low-flow partial-record stations, and water-quality partial-record stations operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, Maryland-Delaware-D. C. District, in the Gwynns Falls watershed. Statistics regarding the number of inventoried ground-water wells in or bordering the Gwynns Falls watershed also are presented. A summary of additional data resources for the Gwynns Falls watershed is provided. This includes (1) an inventory of selected U.S. Geological Survey studies and reports that contain historical data or basin characteristics for streams in the watershed, (2) a listing of indirect flood-discharge measurements that have been made at several monitoring stations in the watershed, (3) a brief discussion of channel-stability and bridge-scour data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in the watershed during 1990?95, (4) a listing of climatological data stations in the watershed and in the surrounding regional area, and (5) a listing of other selected reports that include data or information on the Gwynns Falls watershed.

Maryland↗
USGS2009

Vegetation classification and distribution mapping report: Mesa Verde National Park

The classification and distribution mapping of the vegetation of Mesa Verde National Park (MEVE) and surrounding environment was achieved through a multi-agency effort between 2004 and 2007. The National Park Service’s Southern Colorado Plateau Network facilitated the team that conducted the work, which comprised the U.S. Geological Survey’s Southwest Biological Science Center, Fort Collins Research Center, and Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center; Northern Arizona University; Prescott College; and NatureServe. The project team described 47 plant communities for MEVE, 34 of which were described from quantitative classification based on f eld-relevé data collected in 1993 and 2004. The team derived 13 additional plant communities from field observations during the photointerpretation phase of the project. The National Vegetation Classification Standard served as a framework for classifying these plant communities to the alliance and association level. Eleven of the 47 plant communities were classified as “park specials;” that is, plant communities with insufficient data to describe them as new alliances or associations. The project team also developed a spatial vegetation map database representing MEVE, with three different map-class schemas: base, group, and management map classes. The base map classes represent the fi nest level of spatial detail. Initial polygons were developed using Definiens Professional (at the time of our use, this software was called eCognition), assisted by interpretation of 1:12,000 true-color digital orthophoto quarter quadrangles (DOQQs). These polygons (base map classes) were labeled using manual photo interpretation of the DOQQs and 1:12,000 true-color aerial photography. Field visits verified interpretation concepts. The vegetation map database includes 46 base map classes, which consist of associations, alliances, and park specials classified with quantitative analysis, additional associations and park specials noted during photointerpretation, and non-vegetated land cover, such as infrastructure, land use, and geological land cover. The base map classes consist of 5,007 polygons in the project area. A field-based accuracy assessment of the base map classes showed overall accuracy to be 43.5%. Seven map classes comprise 89.1% of the park vegetated land cover. The group map classes represent aggregations of the base map classes, approximating the group level of the National Vegetation Classification Standard, version 2 (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2007), and reflecting physiognomy and floristics. Terrestrial ecological systems, as described by NatureServe (Comer et al. 2003), were used as the fi rst approximation of the group level. The project team identified 14 group map classes for this project. The overall accuracy of the group map classes was determined using the same accuracy assessment data as for the base map classes. The overall accuracy of the group representation of vegetation was 80.3%. In consultation with park staff , the team developed management map classes, consisting of park-defined groupings of base map classes intended to represent a balance between maintaining required accuracy and providing a focus on vegetation of particular interest or import to park managers. The 23 management map classes had an overall accuracy of 73.3%. While the main products of this project are the vegetation classification and the vegetation map database, a number of ancillary digital geographic information system and database products were also produced that can be used independently or to augment the main products. These products include shapefiles of the locations of field-collected data and relational databases of field-collected data.

Mesa Verde National Park↗
USGS2007

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2006

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2006 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of- the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). After considerable delays due to programming issues, a computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was development and tested in 2005 and 2006. Simulations using observations of collared females with COY were randomly sampled to generate datasets of observations of random females with COY. These datasets were then run though the simulations program to test the accuracy of the rules. Data are currently being summarized. This project has been completed and a manuscript was submitted to the Journal of Wildlife Management. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established human-caused mortality quotas. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris (1984). A Wildlife Monographs was published in 2006. Additionally, the study team, in cooperation with several quantitative experts, reassessed how population size is indexed and how sustainable mortality rates are established. A draft report was presented to the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee in spring 2005. It was published as part of the USFWS Delisting Rule (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 221, Nov. 17, 2005, 69853–69884) and subjected to public comment. This workshop document can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. During the summer of 2006, a second workshop was held to address public comment and professional peer review. The result of this workshop was a supplement to the 2005 workshop document. This supplement can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm under the link Revised Methods to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits. Results of those estimates are provided in Appendix A. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770. Results of the mercury studies were also published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493–501. Copies can be found on the IGBST website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. Based upon this work, we submitted a proposal to analyze all historic tissue samples from grizzly bears in the ecosystem. That proposal was funded and samples have been sent to a lab for isotopic analysis. We hope to have those results in early 2008. Results of DNA hair snaring work conducted on Yellowstone Lake were submitted and published in the Journal Ursus (Haroldson et al. 2005). Results of this study conducted from 1997–2000 showed a decline in fish use by grizzly bears when compared to earlier work conducted by Reinhart (1990) in 1985–1987. As a consequence, the IGBST submitted a proposal to the National Park Service and received 3 years funding to repeat that work. This project began in 2007. There are 2 graduate students and several field technicians working on the program. We completed the final field season in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black bears ( Ursus americanus ). We continue to use GPS technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of the 2006 field season are reported here. We plan to complete the final report in late 2007. We continued to monitor the health of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in cooperation with the Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. A summary of the 2006 monitoring is also presented (Appendix B). The IGBST uses counts of winter-killed ungulates to index spring carcass abundance for grizzly bears. Likewise, we use wier counts and stream surveys to index cutthroat trout abundance. We ask Dr. Steve Cherry, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University-Bozeman, to review the protocols and make recommendations for improving them. That review and recommendations are presented in Appendix C. Finally, the state of Wyoming, following recommendations from the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee and the IGBST, launched the Bear Wise Community Effort. The focus is to minimize human/bear conflicts, minimize human-caused bear mortalities associated with conflicts, and safeguard the human community. Results of these efforts are detailed in Appendix D. The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2019

Flood-inundation maps for Lake Champlain in Vermont and New York

In 2016, digital flood-inundation maps along the shoreline of Lake Champlain in Addison, Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties in Vermont and northern Clinton County in New York were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC). This report discusses the creation of updated static digital flood-inundation mapping, in 2018, to include the entire shoreline of Lake Champlain in the United States. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science website at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent of flooding corresponding to selected water-surface elevations (stages) at the USGS lake gages on Lake Champlain. As a result of the record setting floods of May 2011 in Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River, the U.S. and Canadian governments requested that the IJC issue a reference for a study to identify how flood forecasting, preparedness, and mitigation could be improved in the Lake Champlain–Richelieu River Basin. The IJC submitted the Lake Champlain–Richelieu River Plan of Study to the governments of Canada and the United States in 2013. The flood-inundation maps in this study are one aspect of the task work outlined in the IJC 2013 Plan of Study. Wind and seiche effects (standing oscillating wave with a long wavelength) that can influence flooding along the Lake Champlain shoreline were not represented. The flood-inundation maps reflect 11 stages for Lake Champlain that are static for the entire area of the lake. Near-real-time stages at the USGS gages on Lake Champlain may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System website at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ ( https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN ) or from the National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ . Updated static flood-inundation boundary extents were created for Lake Champlain in Franklin, Chittenden, Addison, Rutland, and Grand Isle Counties in Vermont and Clinton, Essex, and Washington Counties in New York by using recently acquired (2009, 2012, 2014, and 2015) light detection and ranging (lidar) data. The corresponding flood-inundation maps may be referenced to any of the four active USGS lake gages on Lake Champlain. Of these four active lake gages, USGS lake gage 04295000, Richelieu River (Lake Champlain) at Rouses Point, N.Y.; USGS lake gage 04294500, Lake Champlain at Burlington, Vt.; USGS lake gage 04279085 Lake Champlain north of Whitehall, N.Y.; and USGS lake gage 04294413, Lake Champlain at Port Henry, N.Y., only the Richelieu River (Lake Champlain) at Rouses Point, N.Y., gage also serves as a National Weather Service prediction location. Lake Champlain static flood-inundation map boundary extents corresponding to the May 2011 peak flood stage (103.20 feet [ft], National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 29], as recorded at the USGS Rouses Point lake gage, were compared to the flood-inundation area extents determined from satellite imagery for the May 2011 flood (which incorporated documented high-water marks from the flood of May 2011) and were found to be in good agreement. The May 2011 flood is the highest recorded lake water level (stage) at the Rouses Point, N.Y., and Burlington, Vt., lake gages. Flood stages greater than 101.5 ft (NGVD 29) exceed the “major flood stage” as defined by the National Weather Service for USGS lake gage 04295000. Updated digital elevation models (DEMs) were created from the recent lidar data for Lake Champlain in Vermont and New York. These DEMs were used in determining the flood-inundation boundary and associated depth grids for 11 flood stages at 0.5-ft or 1-ft intervals from 100.0 to 106.0 ft (NGVD 29) as referenced to the USGS lake gages. In addition, the May 2011 flood-inundation area for elevation 103.20 ft (NGVD 29) (102.77 ft, North American Vertical Datum of 1988) was determined from these updated DEMs. The availability of these maps, along with online information regarding current stages at the USGS lake gages and forecasted high-flow stages from the National Weather Service at USGS lake gage 04295000, Richelieu River (Lake Champlain) at Rouses Point, N.Y., will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

New York, Vermont↗
USGS2022

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Mississippi River Science Forum—Summary of data and science needs and next steps

The U.S. Geological Survey hosted a Mississippi River Science Forum with Federal agencies; Tribal, State, and local governments located in States that border the Mississippi River; academia; and other interested stakeholders. The purpose of the forum was to share current (2023) science; identify data gaps and areas of concern; and to prioritize next steps needed to advance the goals of improving water quality, restoring habitat and natural systems, improving navigation, eliminating aquatic invasive species, and building local resilience to natural disasters along the Mississippi River. The forum was a directive for the U.S. Geological Survey in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (Public Law 117—103, 136 Stat. 49). Participants and stakeholders that attended the Mississippi River Science Forum indicated the following. A Mississippi River Science Committee could bring together the voices of all stakeholders, including Federal agencies; State, local, and Tribal governments; academia; nongovernmental organizations; business and industry; and other interested parties. This committee would also work with (but not replace) Mississippi River Basin entities already in place and establish effective communication to identify and address Basin-wide management needs and to develop holistic solutions for those needs. A Mississippi River science plan could expand on the science and data gaps identified by the Forum. This plan could guide data collection and help resource managers develop and implement restoration initiatives within the Basin, recognizing that addressing these needs will require substantial resources. The science committee, working with other entities in the basin, should develop data standards for the Mississippi River Basin that allow stakeholders to utilize comparable data to address their needs. These standards would include data findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. This report highlights data gaps and areas of concern discussed during the forum, and it identifies needs to advance the goals of improving water quality, restoring habitat and natural systems, improving navigation, eliminating aquatic invasive species, and building local resilience to natural disasters with specific emphasis on data collection and measurement, and scientific investigation. The report also summarizes stakeholder input and feedback and outlines next steps identified by forum participants.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

Development of health-based screening levels for use in state- or local-scale water-quality assessments

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a need to communicate the significance of the water-quality findings of its National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program in a human-health context. Historically, the USGS has assessed water-quality conditions by comparing water concentration data against established drinking-water standards and guidelines. However, because drinking- water standards and guidelines do not exist for many of the contaminants analyzed by the NAWQA Program and other USGS studies, this approach has proven to be insufficient for placing USGS data in a human-health context. To help meet this need, health-based screening level (HBSL) concentrations or ranges are being determined for unregulated compounds (that is, those for which Federal or State drinking-water standards have not been established), using a consensus approach that was developed collaboratively by the USGS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and Oregon Health & Science University. USEPA Office of Water methodologies for calculating Lifetime Health Advisory and Risk-Specific Dose values for drinking water are being used to develop HBSL concentrations (for unregulated noncarcinogens) and HBSL concentration ranges (for most unregulated carcinogens). This report describes the methodologies used to develop HBSL concentrations and ranges for unregulated compounds in State- and local-scale analyses, and discusses how HBSL values can be used as tools in water-quality assessments. Comparisons of measured water concentrations with Maximum Contaminant Level values and HBSL values require that water-quality data be placed in the proper context, with regard to both hydrology and human health. The use of these HBSL concentrations and ranges by USGS will increase by 27 percent the number of NAWQA contaminants for which health-based benchmarks are available for comparison with USGS water-quality data. USGS can use HBSL values to assist the USEPA and State and local agencies by providing them with comparisons of measured water concentrations to scientifically defensible human health-based benchmarks, and by alerting them when measured concentrations approach or exceed these benchmarks.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2015

Acadia National Park climate change scenario planning workshop summary

This report summarizes outcomes from a two-day scenario planning workshop for Acadia National Park, Maine. The primary objective of the workshop was to help Acadia senior leadership make management and planning decisions based on up-to-date climate science and assessments of future uncertainty. The workshop was also designed as a training program, helping build participants' capabilities to develop and use scenarios. The details of the workshop are given in later sections. The climate scenarios presented here are based on published global climate model output. The scenario implications for resources and management decisions are based on expert knowledge distilled through scientist-manager interaction during workgroup break-out sessions at the workshop. Thus, the descriptions below are from these small-group discussions in a workshop setting and should not be taken as vetted research statements of responses to the climate scenarios, but rather as insights and examinations of possible futures. Here we provide the main conclusions from the scenario planning workshop.

Maine↗
USGS2013

Archive of digital boomer subbottom data collected during USGS cruises 99FGS01 and 99FGS02 offshore southeast and southwest Florida, July and November, 1999

In July (19 - 26) and November (17 - 18) of 1999, the USGS, in cooperation with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS), conducted two geophysical surveys in: (1) the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Florida's east coast from Orchid to Jupiter, FL, and (2) the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Venice, FL. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer subbottom data, trackline maps, navigation files, GIS files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Filtered and gained (showing a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the subbottom profiles are also provided. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, identifiers 99FGS01 and 99FGS02 refer to field data collected in 1999 for cooperative work with the FGS. The numbers 01 and 02 indicate the data were collected during the first and second field activities for that project in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity identification (ID).

Florida↗
USGS2013

Meeting the Science Needs of the Nation in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy-- A U.S. Geological Survey Science Plan for Support of Restoration and Recovery

n late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy came ashore during a spring high tide on the New Jersey coastline, delivering hurricane-force winds, storm tides exceeding 19 feet, driving rain, and plummeting temperatures. Hurricane Sandy resulted in 72 direct fatalities in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States, and widespread and substantial physical, environmental, ecological, social, and economic impacts estimated at near $50 billion. Before the landfall of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS provided forecasts of potential coastal change; collected oblique aerial photography of pre-storm coastal morphology; deployed storm-surge sensors, rapid-deployment streamgages, wave sensors, and barometric pressure sensors; conducted Light Detection And Ranging (lidar) aerial topographic surveys of coastal areas; and issued a landslide alert for landslide prone areas. During the storm, Tidal Telemetry Networks provided real-time water-level information along the coast. Long-term network and rapid-deployment real-time streamgages and water-quality monitors reported on river levels and changes in water quality. Immediately after the storm, the USGS serviced real-time instrumentation, retrieved data from over 140 storm-surge sensors, and collected other essential environmental data, including more than 830 high-water marks mapping the extent and elevation of the storm surge. Post-storm lidar surveys documented storm impacts to coastal barriers informing response and recovery and providing a new baseline to assess vulnerability of the reconfigured coast. The USGS Hazard Data Distribution System served storm related information from many agencies on the Internet on a daily basis. This science plan was developed immediately following Hurricane Sandy to coordinate continuing USGS activities with other agencies and to guide continued data collection and analysis to ensure support for recovery and restoration efforts. The data, information, and tools that are produced by implementing this plan will: (1) further characterize impacts and changes, (2) guide mitigation and restoration of impacted communities and ecosystems, (3) inform a redevelopment strategy aimed at developing resilient coastal communities and ecosystems, (4) improve preparedness and responsiveness to the next hurricane or similar coastal disaster, and (5) enable improved hazard assessment, response, and recovery for future storms along the hurricane prone shoreline of the United States. The activities outlined in this plan are organized in five themes based on impact types and information needs. These USGS science themes are: Theme 1: Coastal topography and bathymetry. Theme 2: Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers. Theme 3: Impacts of storm surge and estuarine and bay hydrology. Theme 4: Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures. Theme 5: Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife. A major emphasis in the implementation of this plan will be on interacting with stakeholders to better understand their specific data and information needs, to define the best way to make information available, and to support applications of USGS science and expertise to decisionmaking.

Connecticut;Delaware;Maine;Maryl;Massachusetts;New↗
USGS2001

Elevations and distances in the United States

The information in this booklet was compiled to answer inquiries received by the U.S. Geological Survey from students, teachers, writers, editors, publishers of encyclopedias, almanacs, and other reference books, and people in many other fields of work. The elevations of features and distances between points in the United States were determined from surveys and topographic maps of the U.S. Geological Survey or obtained from other sources. In most cases, the elevations were determined from surveys and from 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale, 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps. In Alaska, information was taken from 1:63,360-scale, 15-minute topographic quadrangle maps. In a few cases, data were obtained from older, 1:62,500-scale, 15-minute maps; these maps have been replaced with larger scale 7.5-minute coverage. Further information about U.S. Geological Survey products can be obtained from: U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science Information Center, 507 National Center, Reston, VA 20192 or phone 1-888-ASK-USGS, E-mail: ask@usgs.gov, TTY: 703-648-4119.

Report↗
USGS2010

EAARL Coastal Topography-Eastern Louisiana Barrier Islands, Post-Hurricane Gustav, 2008: First Surface

These remotely sensed, geographically referenced elevation measurements of lidar-derived first-surface (FS) topography datasets were produced collaboratively by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg, FL, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Wallops Flight Facility, VA. This project provides highly detailed and accurate datasets of a portion of the eastern Louisiana barrier islands, acquired post-Hurricane Gustav (September 2008 hurricane) on September 6 and 7, 2008. The datasets are made available for use as a management tool to research scientists and natural-resource managers. An innovative airborne lidar instrument originally developed at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, and known as the Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL), was used during data acquisition. The EAARL system is a raster-scanning, waveform-resolving, green-wavelength (532-nanometer) lidar designed to map near-shore bathymetry, topography, and vegetation structure simultaneously. The EAARL sensor suite includes the raster-scanning, water-penetrating full-waveform adaptive lidar, a down-looking red-green-blue (RGB) digital camera, a high-resolution multispectral color infrared (CIR) camera, two precision dual-frequency kinematic carrier-phase GPS receivers, and an integrated miniature digital inertial measurement unit, which provide for sub-meter georeferencing of each laser sample. The nominal EAARL platform is a twin-engine Cessna 310 aircraft, but the instrument may be deployed on a range of light aircraft. A single pilot, a lidar operator, and a data analyst constitute the crew for most survey operations. This sensor has the potential to make significant contributions in measuring sub-aerial and submarine coastal topography within cross-environmental surveys. Elevation measurements were collected over the survey area using the EAARL system, and the resulting data were then processed using the Airborne Lidar Processing System (ALPS), a custom-built processing system developed in a NASA-USGS collaboration. ALPS supports the exploration and processing of lidar data in an interactive or batch mode. Modules for presurvey flight-line definition, flight-path plotting, lidar raster and waveform investigation, and digital camera image playback have been developed. Processing algorithms have been developed to extract the range to the first and last significant return within each waveform. ALPS is used routinely to create maps that represent submerged or sub-aerial topography. Specialized filtering algorithms have been implemented to determine the 'bare earth' under vegetation from a point cloud of last return elevations. For more information about similar projects, please visit the Decision Support for Coastal Science and Management website.

Data Series↗