DOCSLIB.ORG

'I'wo- to Ten-Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'I'wo- to Ten-Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU TECHNICAL _PAPER NO. 49 'I'WO- TO TEN-DAY PRECIPITATION FOR RETURN PERIODS OF 2 TO 100 YEARS IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES OKLAHOMA CiTY, vKL.A. RECEIVED OCT 5-1964 WASHINGTON, D.C. USGS 1964 SURFACE WATER BRANCH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU LUTHER H. HODGES, Secretary ROBERT M. WHITE, Chief TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 49 Two- to Ten-Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States Prepared by JOHN F. MILLER Cooperative Studies Section, Office of Hydrology, U.S. Weather Bureau for Engineering Division, Soil Conservation. Service, U.S. Departm.ent of Agriculture WASHINGTON, D.C. 1964 For BBle by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovenunentPrinting Otlice, Waahiugton, D.C., 20402 PREFACE Authority.-This report was prepared for the Soil Conservation Service to provide generalized rainfall information for planning and design purposes in connection with its Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (authori­ zation: P.L. 566, 83d Congress, and as amended). Scope.-Precipitation data for various hydrologic design problems involving areas up to 400 square miles and dura­ tions from 2 to 10 days are presented. The data consist of generalized estimates of rainfall-frequency data for return periods from 2 to 100 years. Accuracy of results.-The degree of accuracy of the generalized estimates depicted on the rainfall-frequency maps presented in this report is believed to be adequate for practically all engineering purposes. It should be expected that somewhat greater accuracy might have been obtained had the maps been based on data from the several thousand available precipitation gages instead of from a few hundred. However, the collection and frequency analysis of rainfall data for durations up to 10 days for a few thousand gages would have been a formidable task and an extremely costly enterprise. Furthermore, the accuracy of the results obtained is much greater than indicated by the relatively small number of stations used since the approach involved the projection of the 24-hour rainfall-frequency maps of Techm:wal Paper No. 40 [I], which are based on data from several thousand stations. The possible greater accuracy that might have been obtained by use of data. from a. much larger number of gages was judged to be incommensurate with the much greater cost involved. Acknowledgments.-The project was under the general supervision of J. L. H. Paulhus, Chief of the Cooperative Studies Section of the Office of Hydrology, W. E. Hiatt, Acting Director. L. L. Weiss assisted with the investigations. W. E. Miller and N. S. Foat supervised the collection and processing of the basic data.. Drafting was supervised by C. W. Gardner. Coordination with the Soil Conservation Service was maintained through H. 0. Ogrosky, Chief, Hydrology Branch, Engineering Division. CONTENTS page Page PurACE. __ ---__ --------_____ ---------__________________________________________ -=-- _______________________________ _ ii Figure 8.-Points for which precipitation-frequency data were computed-------------------------------------------------­ 4 INTRODUCTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 Figure 9.-Bmoothing values read from isopluvial maps----------------------------------------------------------------- .; Figure 10.-Depth-area curves _______________ ----_-----------__________ ------_______ ----_______________ --- ____ -------_ BASIC DATA •• ----------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 5 Summarization of data-Period and length of record-Station exposure. Figure 11.-Location of dense networks used to develop depth-area curves------------------------------------------------- 5 DUBATION ANALYSIS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Figure 12.-2-year 2-day precipitation (in.)-------_________ --------__ ------ _______ ---------__ ----_--------------_______ _ 6 •hour vs. observational-day precipitation-Duration-interpolation diagram. Figure 13.-5-year 2-day precipitation (in.) ___________ --_______ -----_------____________ --------____ -----_____ -----_____ _ 7 FBI!IQUENCY ANALYSIS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Figure 14.-10-year 2-day precipitation (ln.) ___ ----___ ------___ -----_----______ ------__ -----________________ ----_______ _ 8 Two types of series-Frequency considerations--Construction of return-period diagram-Use of return-period diagram- Figure 15.-25-year 2-day precipitation (ln.) ________________ ----______ --------------__ ----_______ ----___ ---____________ _ 9 General applicability of return-period diagram--8ecular trend. Figure 16.-50-year 2-day precipitation (in.) ___ ----_________ -----____ ------_____ -----____ ----____ ----___ ---_------_____ _ 10 lao PLUVIAL MAPS ______ -------____________________________ --------_----___ ---------------------------___ ----_______ _ 2 Figure 17.-100-year 2-day precipitation (ln.) __________________ --- __________ ----_____ ----________ -------_______________ _ 11 Relation between 2-year 24- and 240-hour amounts-smoothing of isopluvial maps-2-year 10-day map-Ratio of 100-year Figure 18.-2-year 4-day precipitation (in.) ____ --__ --_______ ----_______ ---___ ---------_-----_____ -------------_________ _ 12 to 2-year values-100-year 10-day map-22 additional maps-Reliability of results-Isoline interval-Bmoothmg values Figure 19.-5-year 4-day precipitation {in.) ___________________ ----_----_________ ----__ --------______ --- __ --_----- ______ _ 13 read from maps. Figure 20.-10-year 4-day precipitation {in.) ______ ---__________ ------_____________ ----__ ------___________ ---___________ _ 14 DEPTH-ABEA RELATIONBBIPS-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Figure 21.-25-year 4-day precipitation {ln.) _______ --__ --__ --------_------____ ----_________ ---------------------_______ _ 15 Introduction-Data used-Determination of area of network-Construction of the ourves-Geographic variation. Figure 22.-50-year 4-day precipitation {ln.) _____ --____ -- ____________ ----____ -----___ -----______ -----------___ ----_____ _ 16 SEASONAL VARIATION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 Figure 23.-100-year 4-day precipitation (in.) ____________ ----_--------___ ----___ -----__ ----____ ------------___________ -- 17 REriDIIENCES•• --- _ ---____ ----_________________________ ----______ -----__________ • _____________ ------________________ _ .; Figure 24.-2-year 7-day precipitation (in.) _____________ ---__ -----_____ -----_____ -----------_____ -------------------- __ _ 18 Figure 25.-5-year 7-day precipitation {in.) ________ ------____ --------------------________ -----___ ------_____ -----______ _ 19 Figure 26.-10-year 7-day precipitation ("ln.) __________________ ---------__ ---_____________________ ------_-----__________ _ 20 LIST OF U.LUSTRATIONS Flgure 27.-25-year 7-day precipitation (in.) __ ---------___ ----______ --------__ -----__ ---------_---------- __ -----______ _ 21 Figure I.-Precipitation stations. ______ -------________ -------------_------------------------------------------------_ 1 Figure 28.-50-yeail, 7-day precipitation (in.) _________________________ ----_----------___ ----______ ------_----___________ _ 22 Figure 2.-Relation between 2-year 2-observational-day and 2-year 48-hour precipxtation----------------------------------- 2 Figure 29.-100-year 7-day precipitation (in.) ________________ -----_----------______ ---------_-------------____ --___ --_-- 23 Figure 3.-Duration-interpolation diagram. ____ -----__ ---- ___ -------___ ---------------------_----------_----_______ --- 2 Figure 30.-2-year 10-day precipitation (ln.) ________ ---____ ---------__________ -----___________ ------------------_______ _ 24 Figure 4.-Relation between 2-year 4-day precipitation computed by extreme value analysis and 2-year 4-day precipitation Figure 31.-5-year 10-day precipitation (in.) _______ --------__ -----------_----____________________ ---------------_______ _ 25 estimated from duration-interpolation diagram (fig. 3)------------•----------------------------------------- 2 Figure 32.-10-year 10-day precipitation (in.)------_____ -----_----_________ ----____ ----------------------------______ --- 26 Figure 5.-Return-period-interpolation diagram ______ ----__ ---------_------------------------------------_----------_ 2 Flgure 33.-25-year 10-day precipitation (ln.) __________ ---_----______ ----______ ----_____ -----____ -----------_----____ --- 27 Figure 6.-Relationship for estimating 2-year 10-day precipitation------------------------------------------------------­ 3 Figure 34.-50-year 10-day precipitation (ln.) ____________________ ----___________ ----____ -----___ -----------____________ _ 28 Figure 7.-Relation between 2-year 10-day precipitation computed by extreme value analysis and 2-year 10-day precipitation Figure 35.-100-year 10-day precipitation ("ln.) _______ ---______ -----___ ---____ ----______ --------------------------__ ----- 29 estimated from figure 6. _ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Two- to Ten-Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States JOHN F. MILLER Cooperative Studies Section, Office of Hydrology, U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C. INTRODUCTION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Report: Killer Heat in the United States
    Killer Heat in the United States Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days Killer Heat in the United States Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days Kristina Dahl Erika Spanger-Siegfried Rachel Licker Astrid Caldas John Abatzoglou Nicholas Mailloux Rachel Cleetus Shana Udvardy Juan Declet-Barreto Pamela Worth July 2019 © 2019 Union of Concerned Scientists The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent All Rights Reserved science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical Authors solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. Kristina Dahl is a senior climate scientist in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. More information about UCS is available on the UCS website: www.ucsusa.org Erika Spanger-Siegfried is the lead climate analyst in the program. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org /killer-heat. Rachel Licker is a senior climate scientist in the program. Cover photo: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin Astrid Caldas is a senior climate scientist in the program. In Phoenix on July 5, 2018, temperatures surpassed 112°F. Days with extreme heat have become more frequent in the United States John Abatzoglou is an associate professor in the Department and are on the rise. of Geography at the University of Idaho. Printed on recycled paper. Nicholas Mailloux is a former climate research and engagement specialist in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS. Rachel Cleetus is the lead economist and policy director in the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Unusual Mean Winter Temperatures Across the Contiguous United States
    Recent Unusual Mean Winter Thomas R. Karl1, Robert E. Livezey2 Temperatures Across the Contiguous United States Abstract United States, even in an unusually cold (or warm) winter, can include a month of relatively mild (or cold) weather or A long-time series (1895-1984) of mean areally averaged winter contain small portions of the country that have relatively temperatures in the contiguous United States depicts an unprece- mild (or cold) weather throughout the winter. dented spell of abnormal winters beginning with the winter of 1975-76. Three winters during the eight-year period, 1975-76 through 1982-83, are defined as much warmer than normal (abnor- mal), and the three consecutive winters, 1976-77 through 1978-79, 2. Data much colder than normal (abnormal). Abnormal is defined here by the least abnormal of these six winters based on their normalized departures from the mean. When combined, these two abnormal The data set used to obtain areally weighted average winter categories have an expected frequency close to 21%. Assuming that temperature departures was originally used and described by the past 89 winters (1895-1984) are a large enough sample to esti- Diaz and Quayle (1978). The data, which begin in 1931, con- mate the true interannual temperature variability between winters, sist of monthly averages of temperatures for each of 344 state we find, using Monte Carlo simulations, that the return period of a series of six winters out of eight being either much above or much climatic divisions (CDs) in the contiguous United States, below normal is more than 1000 years.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Will Review Status of Canada Lynx to Prepare for Recovery Planning
    R For Immediate Release January 13, 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review status of Canada lynx to prepare for recovery planning Contacts: Maine: Meagan Racey, 413-253-8558; [email protected] Mark Latti (MDIFW), 207-287-5216; [email protected] National: Jim Zelenak, 406-449-5225, ext. 220; [email protected] Ryan Moehring, 303-236-0345; [email protected] BANGOR, Maine. – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announced today that the agency will review the status of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), which is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act as a contiguous United States distinct population segment (DPS). The five-year status review will clarify the extent, magnitude, and nature of the threats to the lynx DPS so that recovery planning may target those specific threats. "The status review will help us evaluate how well the Service and our partners have addressed the primary threat to Canada lynx, which, when the species was listed, was the lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect the lynx and its habitats," said Laury Zicari, supervisor of the Service’s Maine Field Office. "In northern Maine, a core area for lynx in the U.S., forest management planning on non-federal lands will continue to be key to maintaining favorable conditions for lynx and snowshoe hares." Lynx are highly specialized predators that are dependent on snowshoe hares as a food source. The North American distribution of the lynx overlaps much of the range of the snowshoe hare, and both are strongly associated with boreal forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    WATER RESOURCES WHITE PAPER PREPARED FOR THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT MIDWEST TECHNICAL INPUT REPORT Brent Lofgren and Andrew Gronewold Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory Recommended Citation: Lofgren, B. and A. Gronewold, 2012: Water Resources. In: U.S. National Climate Assessment Midwest Technical Input Report. J. Winkler, J. Andresen, J. Hatfield, D. Bidwell, and D. Brown, coordinators. Available from the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA) Center, http://glisa.msu.edu/docs/NCA/MTIT_WaterResources.pdf. At the request of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center (GLISA) and the National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment formed a Midwest regional team to provide technical input to the National Climate Assessment (NCA). In March 2012, the team submitted their report to the NCA Development and Advisory Committee. This whitepaper is one chapter from the report, focusing on potential impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation options to climate variability and change for the water resources sector. U.S. National Climate Assessment: Midwest Technical Input Report: Water Resources Sector White Paper Contents Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Divided Where Landforms Form
    NorthREGIONS OF America Home Sweet Tundra A CONTINENT DIVIDED WHERE LANDFORMS FORM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH Regions_of_NA_FC.indd 1 1/30/17 12:48 PM 2 Americas include two continents (North and South America) and 35 countries? The Big Picture People from Canada, Mexico, and even as When someone says “America,” what do far away as Chile and Argentina also live you think of? Probably the United States in the Americas. The United States shares of America. But did you know that the the continent of North America with Geography is the study of Earth’s landscapes, peo- ple, places, and environments. An environment is the surround- ings in which people, plants, and animals live. u IF YOU’RE THINK- Geographers think ing about where about how people things are in and things relate the world, that’s to where they are geography. located on Earth. r CANADA, OUR neighbor to the north (or east, if you’re in Alaska) is the second- largest country in the world! It’s a little bigger than the United States but has fewer people than the than any other because Canada state of California. country. Canada was a French Bordering three has two official colony before it oceans, Canada languages, English became a has more coastline and French. This is British colony. r MEXICO, OUR neighbor to the south, is about three times the size of Texas. It has just over one-third as many people My Corner as the U.S. Most of the World Mexicans speak Spanish today Can you find the United because Mexico States on this satellite image was once a colony of the Americas? of Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Us States Admission Order
    Us States Admission Order Is Kellen muciferous or undefeated after notochordal Olaf te-heed so anyplace? Hollow-eyed and preachier Jeth never rack-rent his brills! Coccal and pointless Garwood still con his summariness covertly. West virginia bar admission order set forth in both new community founded for our classroom resources for admission listed in the office of puerto rico DC statehood The US almost tore itself through to crank to 50 Vox. United states use this period for us about whether congress. Nationals visiting the US They brought your admission to the United States even if eligible your travel documents including your visa are custom order. Often omit the Enabling Act Congress specified a fit of conditions that the proposed state had ever meet in bed for admission to occur. Gold in order will remain a virtual or used. Most feared as you can count on. Some error or used ceremonial pipes that each applicant has been procedurally legal employment references by which maine were admitted state after him or illegal use. Bar admissions instructions before its composition was admitted. Women and children were also employed in the mines. Share its admissions administrator under us make written motion, but there were used on a call for hospital. The treatment and football in secessionist counties did you are competent legal. List of US states by woman of statehood. Equal Footing cases postdate Reconstruction. There were no large abolitionist groups in West Virginia, as there were in Delaware and Maryland. Choose a date and chemistry to set myself a create or telephone appointment.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Pacific Territories and Federal Telecommunications Policies: a Blueprint for the Future
    THE U.S. PACIFIC TERRITORIES AND FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICIES: A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE Thomas K. Crowe* Due to remote location, limited population and I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND historically scarce representation before federal pol- icy-makers in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Pacific A. Governmental Status of U.S. Pacific Territories territories have become the "lost children" of the United States in terms of telecommunications policy. Although there are three U.S. territories located in Not only do the territories pose thorny legal the Pacific that fly the United States flag, the Com- problems for the Federal Communications Commis- monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands sion ("FCC"), but the FCC has been slow and hesi- ("CNMI"), the Territory of Guam, and the Terri- tant in moving to address Pacific territory issues. tory of American Samoa are not part of the fifty The problem is now so severe that the Pacific terri- states. CNMI has held U.S. commonwealth status tories risk being left off the emerging "Information since 1986.' By contrast, Guam is an "organized" Superhighway." Ironically, action by the FCC and territory since its civil government was established other federal policy-makers is precisely what is under the Guam Organic Act of 1950.2 American needed with respect to the territories. Federal inter- Samoa is an unorganized territory; it has a legisla- vention establishing rate integration, mandating ture and an elected governor, but the operation of equal access, and resolving numbering issues would the civil government is not the result of the enact- 8 promote more accessible, lower cost communications ment of an organic act.
    [Show full text]
  • EXECUTIVE ORDER 93-05 Controlling State Travel
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 93-05 Controlling State Travel Expenditures WHEREAS, travel is often an integral part of the delivery of state services and helps accomplish desired objectives such as improving client contact, staff training, and coordination of government services; and WHEREAS, it is important to guarantee that all state funds are spent in the most economical and fiscally responsible manner; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mike Lowry, Governor of the State of Washington, by virtue of the power vested in me, do hereby order the following standards for travel expenditures in state agencies: I. State agency directors shall take primary responsibility for ensuring that any travel by agency employees is directly work-related, obtained at the most economical price, and is both critical and necessary for state business. To this end, all out-of-state travel by agency employees must have prior approval by the head of the agency, or other top-level management staff specifically designated by the agency head. II. All travel outside the contiguous United States, Alaska, or British Columbia engaged in by agency heads must have prior approval from my office. III. Agencies must maintain internal records documenting the reason for all out-of-state travel, and for any in-state travel exceeding 24 hours in duration. At a minimum, this documentation must contain the following information: the purpose of the trip and how it relates to the employee's work assignment; a description of expected benefits; and a statement of whether an alternative approach could have achieved the same result. IV. Agencies are directed to develop and implement alternatives to travel, as weir as less expensive means of travel.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Severe Fire Potential Map for the Contiguous United States
    Development of a Severe Fire Potential Map for the Contiguous United States Gregory K. Dillon, Matthew H. Panunto, Brett Davis, Penelope Morgan, Donovan S. Birch, William M. Jolly Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report August Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-415 2020 Dillon, Gregory K.; Panunto, Matthew H.; Davis, Brett; Morgan, Penelope; Birch, Donovan S.; Jolly, William M. 2020. Development of a Severe Fire Potential map for the contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-415. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 107 p. Abstract Burn severity is the ecological change resulting from wildland fires. It is often mapped by using prefire and postfire satellite imagery and classified as low, moderate, or high. Areas burned with high severity are of particular concern to land managers and others because postfire vegetation, soil, and other important ecosystem components can be highly altered. In this study, we developed Random Forest statistical models describing the occurrence of high burn severity across the contiguous United States. We divided our work into 17 regions in the western United States and 8 regions in the eastern United States, and further subdivided them by forest and nonforest vegetation settings, resulting in 50 separate models. Our predictor variables represented prefire vegetation, topography, and fuel moisture, and our response variable was satellite-derived burn severity from the U.S. interagency Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity program. We created statistical models from 6,663 fires in the western United States (1984–2007) and 5,295 fires in the eastern United States (2000–2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 6/Wednesday, January 10, 2007/Rules and Regulations
    1186 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations significant energy action. FRA has $7,700 for calendar year 2006, and as threatened. On December 26, 2002, evaluated this final rule in accordance $8,200 for calendar year 2007. The the Court issued a Memorandum of with Executive Order 13211. FRA has procedure for determining the reporting Opinion and Order to have the Service determined that this final rule is not threshold for calendar years 2006 and explain our 2000 finding that likely to have a significant adverse effect beyond appears as paragraphs 1–8 of ‘‘[c]ollectively the Northeast, Great on the supply, distribution, or use of appendix B to part 225. Lakes and Southern Rockies do not energy. Consequently, FRA has * * * * * constitute a significant portion of the determined that this regulatory action is Issued in Washington, DC, on December [lynx] DPS.’’ Pursuant to that order, the not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 29, 2006. Service published a notice of remanded the meaning of Executive Order 13211. Joseph H. Boardman, determination and clarification of our Privacy Act Administrator. 2000 finding on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40075). In that notice, the Service Anyone is able to search the [FR Doc. E7–112 Filed 1–9–07; 8:45 am] attempted to address the court’s order electronic form of all our comments BILLING CODE 4910–06–P and issued a new finding that the lynx received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the is not endangered throughout a comment (or signing the comment, if DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR significant portion of its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Statehood Process and Political Status of U.S. Territories: Brief Policy Background
    Updated March 19, 2021 Statehood Process and Political Status of U.S. Territories: Brief Policy Background Proposals to admit new states to the union are as old as the these independent nations are the Federated States of republic. An expanded United States was contemplated at Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the least as early as 1787, with enactment of the Northwest Republic of Palau. They are not U.S. territories. Ordinance, which addressed territorial expansion, even before the first states ratified the U.S. Constitution later the All five U.S. territories discussed here exercise varying and same year. Vermont joined the union in 1791, the first new potentially evolving degrees of self-governance (the details state beyond the 13 original colonies. Arizona and New of which are beyond the scope of this product). In the Mexico completed the contiguous United States in 1912. executive branch, the U.S. Interior Department’s Office of Alaska and Hawaii became the 49th and 50th states Insular Affairs (OIA) coordinates federal relations with respectively in 1959. Would-be states have relied on territories except Puerto Rico. Since the Kennedy different methods to join the union, and there is no single Administration, the Executive Office of the President has process for doing so. This In Focus provides brief coordinated federal relations with Puerto Rico. background about the statehood process generally, and about how it might affect congressional consideration of Voters in all five territories elect governors and territorial proposed statehood for U.S. territories. legislatures. The territories are not represented in the electoral college and thus do not cast votes for President of Any change in territorial political status, including the United States, although eligible voters may participate statehood admission, would require congressional approval in party primaries or other nominating events.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreation in the Northern United States
    O UTD oo R R ECREATI O N in the Northern United States Manuscript received for publication: October 2011 Published by: For additional copies: USDA Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station Publications Distribution 11 Campus Blvd, Suite 200 359 Main Road Newtown Square, PA 19073 Delaware, OH 43015 August 2012 Fax: 740-368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us Outdoor Recreation in the Northern United States H. Ken Cordell, Carter J. Betz, Shela H. Mou, and Dale D. Gormanson H. KEN CORDELL, PIONEERING RESEARCH SCIENTIST SHELA H. MOU, COMPUTER ASSISTANT Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service 320 Green Street 320 Green Street Athens, GA 30602 Athens, GA 30602 706-559-4263 706-559-4262 [email protected] [email protected] CARTER J. BETZ DALE D. GORMANSON, FORESTER Formerly with Southern Research Station Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service 1992 Folwell Avenue 1280 Robinhood Road St. Paul, MN 55108 Watkinsville, GA 30677 651-649-5126 706-769-8437 [email protected] [email protected] i similar image ii CONTENTS Introduction 1 Population and Demographic Trends 6 Outdoor Recreation Trends 19 Recreation Resource Trends and Futures 34 Summary of Key Findings 52 Discussion of Findings 56 Acknowledgments 59 Literature Cited 61 Appendix: Methods and Data Sources 67 Literature Cited 73 Abstract inside back cover CONTENTS iii List of Figures Figure 1—Population density by county in the contiguous United States, 2009. | 10 Figure 2—Change in population density by county in the contiguous United States, 1990 to 2009.
    [Show full text]