Impact source determination with biomonitoring data in New York State: Concordance with environmental data
No abstract available.
Northeastern Naturalist↗
SEARCH · Geology Reports
Results for “Data”
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.
Data availability and technology transfer at the EROS Data Center: Current responsibilities, recent developments, and future plans
No abstract available.
South Dakota↗
A network common data form (NETCDF) utility for efficient environmental data processing and visualization
No abstract available.
Conference Paper↗
Analysis and review of fishery-dependent data for Hawaiian nearshore noncommercial fisheries
Noncommercial, shore-based fisheries provide economic, social, and cultural services to communities throughout the Hawaiian Islands. The State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) routinely conducts surveys to monitor noncommercial fisheries such that estimates of fishing effort and catch by gear type can be generated and used to implement more sustainable management practices. DAR executes both the Hawai‘i Marine Recreational Fishery Survey (HMRFS), a nationally standardized survey that focuses on intercepting fishers at access points (i.e., boat ramps) across the main Hawaiian Islands, and a set of roving creel surveys on O‘ahu, Maui Nui, and Kaua‘i that observe and intercept fishers at locations along the shoreline outside of those targeted by HMRFS. The latter set of creel surveys were designed to complement HMRFS by expanding its geographic coverage and thus providing a more representative picture of noncommercial fishing in Hawai‘i. Sustainable management priorities set by DAR rely on the availability of statewide, fishery- dependent data. Thus, we collate information from island-based roving creel surveys into a cohesive Statewide Creel Survey Database. Further, we provide preliminary analyses and describe ways that surveys could be streamlined to improve future data collection, analysis, and utility. In so doing, we synthesize the most detailed information to-date about noncommercial shore-based fisheries of Hawai‘i. The unprecedented spatial and temporal coverage of DAR’s dataset reveals the value of their survey efforts over the last decade to address fishery management needs. Our primary objectives, results, and conclusions are summarized below: 1) Integrate DAR roving creel survey data from different islands into a single Statewide Creel Survey Dataset (Chapter II). We describe the collation of creel survey data from O‘ahu, Maui Nui, and Kaua‘i into a statewide dataset. We also offer ways in which these surveys could be streamlined to meet the needs of managers and decision makers. Briefly, these are to create a statewide strategic plan, standardize the execution of standard operating procedures, centralize the creel survey database and associated metadata, and consider using technology that improves the data pipeline, including transitioning from paper-based to electronic systems for data entry and processing. 2) Assess whether the new Statewide Creel Survey Dataset can provide inputs for length-based stock assessments (Chapter III). Only on Maui were interviews conducted with associated catch data. There was reasonably high taxonomic coverage (42 species from 186 interviews with 310 fishers), but low sample sizes for nearly all species precluded the development of length-based stock assessments. We provide summary statistics from the existing data and briefly discuss how technologies could be used to automate analysis of images of noncommercial catch. 3) Analyze the Statewide Creel Survey Dataset for spatial and temporal patterns in fishing effort (Chapter IV): a. Visualizing noncommercial fishing pressure . We found that fishing effort (mean number of fishers observed per survey event at a site) on O'ahu was over three times greater than that recorded during similar surveys conducted on Maui or Kaua'i. We create maps that display the distribution of angling and spearfishing effort around each of the three islands. b. Factors that predict fishing “hotspots” around Maui . Fishing effort on Maui was associated with areas with more wave power and less parking availability. There were half as many fishers in areas with parking lots than in areas with parking on the road shoulder only. c. Changes in fishing effort during the COVID-19 pandemic . There was no change in fishing effort on O‘ahu during the first year of the pandemic, but there was a 20% decline in year 2 and a 33% decline in year 3, both in comparison to pre-pandemic levels. Pre-pandemic creel survey data were unavailable for Maui and Kaua‘i, but fishing effort on these islands also declined as the pandemic progressed at similar or greater rates than those observed on O‘ahu. 4) Quantify potential bias in survey methods by experimentally deriving fisher detection probabilities of shore-based and drone-based surveys (Chapter V): a. Shore-based surveys . We conducted roving creel surveys for four months at three locations around Hilo Bay, designed to emulate and estimate the efficacy of DAR standard operating procedures. There was high agreement between paired observers in counting fishers, leading to near-perfect detection probabilities of both anglers (94%) and spearfishers (97%), but relatively low agreement and detection probabilities of other fishers (throw net, ‘opihi picking, etc.) (52%). b. Drone-based surveys . We used an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV; operated by DAR staff) to collect imagery of fishers along the Hilo Bay shoreline. We used still images and video clips (with known fishing activity) to build an online survey that was distributed to DAR and HCFRU personnel, asking them to count and categorize resource users as a snorkeler, spearfisher, angler, or other fisher. Only 40.0% of the responses correctly counted and categorized resource users in the image. Anglers were correctly identified and enumerated in 90.0% of the responses, but the correct response rates of the other three user categories ranged from 67.8% – 79.4%. Snorkelers and anglers tended to be undercounted while spearfishers and other fishers were overcounted. 5) Review the potential for incorporating emerging technologies that will improve, augment, and evolve creel survey data collection, especially for spearfishing (Chapter VI). Within the context of monitoring shore-based noncommercial fishing, we review the use of electronic data entry/processing systems with geospatial and image capabilities, field cameras, drones, smart buoys, citizen science apps, data mining social media, artificial intelligence and machine learning. We highlight several of the challenges and considerations when implementing these technologies into creel surveys and provide a synthesis of options that could be used to better estimate spearfishing. The general conclusion of this assessment is that the DAR roving creel survey program is collecting valuable data that supplement the existing HMRFS efforts. However, there are a number of areas that could be improved to make these efforts a more effective tool for decision-making processes in resource management and conservation: 1) Establishment of clear statewide and island objectives for the Statewide Creel Survey Dataset. Currently, data collection efforts are focused towards addressing a very broad purpose – supplementing the HMRFS data collection efforts. However, the results of the preliminary analyses conducted as part of this project suggest that the data could be used to address other areas of need if these objectives were clearly defined. Further, the design of the creel survey would benefit from greater standardization of survey protocols between islands and an effort to define a) the acceptable margins of error associated with the estimates generated by these data and b) the minimum level of change that the surveys would need to detect to be useful to managers. 2) Centralization of data entry, data quality assessment, and data accessibility. Currently, each DAR office manages data entry, checks the data for errors, and is responsible for managing and storing the data. Instituting a centralized data entry system, particularly an online database that can receive survey data from tablets or smartphones running a standardized data collection application would improve efficiency, reduce data entry errors, and accelerate the availability of data to managers. A substantial amount of time and effort from the project described in this report was devoted to checking the dataset for errors. The development and application of data quality assurance protocols would ensure that the data are reliable and available in a timely fashion to support management decisions. 3) Address lingering questions regarding the efficacy of current survey protocols to capture and characterize the spearfishing component of the noncommercial fishery. The results presented in the report suggest that the current creel survey protocols do a good job detecting spearfishers when present but are not capturing sufficient data about their catch or total effort. There are also questions remaining as to whether the survey times and sites are sufficiently capturing the behavior of spearfishers in Hawai‘i. A more thorough assessment – whether through additional research, alteration of survey design, or review of data by representatives of the spearfishing community – would provide insight on how to use the Statewide Creel Survey Database to inform management of spearfishing. 4) Investigate the integration of technological advancements into the creel survey methods. As priorities and needs are developed and formalized, it would be valuable to consider how various technological advancements might enhance and streamline data collection or open new avenues of inquiry.
Hawaii↗
Recovery and validation of historical sediment quality data from coastal and estuarine areas: An integrated approach
A comprehensive database of sediment chemistry and environmental parameters has been compiled for Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. This work illustrates methodologies for rescuing and validating sediment data from heterogeneous historical sources. It greatly expands spatial and temporal data coverage of estuarine and coastal sediments. The database contains about 3500 samples containing inorganic chemical, organic, texture and other environmental data dating from 1955 to 1994. Cooperation with local and federal agencies as well as universities was essential in locating and screening documents for the database. More than 80% of references utilized came from sources with limited distribution (gray literature). Task sharing was facilitated by a comprehensive and clearly defined data dictionary for sediments. It also served as a data entry template and flat file format for data processing and as a basis for interpretation and graphical illustration. Standard QA/QC protocols are usually inapplicable to historical sediment data. In this work outliers and data quality problems were identified by batch screening techniques that also provide visualizations of data relationships and geochemical affinities. No data were excluded, but qualifying comments warn users of problem data. For Boston Harbor, the proportion of irreparable or seriously questioned data was remarkably small (<5%), although concentration values for metals and organic contaminants spanned 3 orders of magnitude for many elements or compounds. Data from the historical database provide alternatives to dated cores for measuring changes in surficial sediment contamination level with time. The data indicate that spatial inhomogeneity in harbor environments can be large with respect to sediment-hosted contaminants. Boston Inner Harbor surficial sediments showed decreases in concentrations of Cu, Hg, and Zn of 40 to 60% over a 17-year period.A comprehensive database of sediment chemistry and environmental parameters has been compiled for Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. This work illustrates methodologies for rescuing and validating sediment data from heterogeneous historical sources. It greatly expands spatial and temporal data coverage of estuarine and coastal sediments. The database contains about 3500 samples containing inorganic chemical, organic, texture and other environmental data dating from 1995 to 1994. Cooperation with local and federal agencies as well as universities was essential in locating and screening documents for the database. More than 80% of references utilized came from sources with limited distribution (gray Task sharing was facilitated by a comprehensive and clearly defined data dictionary for sediments. It also served as a data entry template and flat file format for data processing and as a basis for interpretation and graphical illustration. Standard QA/QC protocols are usually inapplicable to historical sediment data. In this work outliers and data quality problems were identified by batch screening techniques that also provide visualizations of data relationships and geochemical affinities. No data were excluded, but qualifying comments warn users of problem data. For Boston Harbor, the proportion of irreparable or seriously questioned data was remarkably small (<5%), although concentration values for metals and organic contaminants spanned 3 orders of magnitude for many elements or compounds. Data from the historical database provide alternatives to dated cores for measuring changes in surficial sediment contamination level with time. The data indicate that spatial inhomogeneity in harbor environments can be large with respect to sediment-hosted contaminants. Boston Inner Harbor surficial sediments showed decreases in concentrations Cu, Hg, and Zn of 40 to 60% over a 17-year period.
Massachusetts↗
Evaluation of airborne thermal-infrared image data for monitoring aquatic habitats and cultural resources within the Grand Canyon
This study examined thermal-infrared (TIR) image data acquired using the airborne Advanced Thematic Mapper (ATM) sensor in the afternoon of July 25th, 2000 over a portion of the Colorado River corridor to determine the capability of these 100-cm resolution data to address some biologic and cultural resource requirements for GCMRC. The requirements investigated included the mapping of warm backwaters that may serve as fish habitats and the detection (and monitoring) of archaeological structures and natural springs that occur on land. This report reviews the procedure for calibration of the airborne TIR data to obtain surface water temperatures and shows the results for various river reaches within the acquired river corridor. With respect to mapping warm backwater areas, our results show that TIR data need to be acquired with a gain setting that optimizes the range of temperatures found within the water to increase sensitivity of the resulting data to a level of 0.1 °C and to reduce scan-line noise. Data acquired within a two-hour window around maximum solar heating (1:30 PM) is recommended to provide maximum solar heating of the water and to minimize cooling effects of late-afternoon shadows. Ground-truth data within the temperature range of the warm backwaters are necessary for calibration of the TIR data. The ground-truth data need to be collected with good locational accuracy. The derived water-temperature data provide the capability for rapid, wide-area mapping of warm-water fish habitats using a threshold temperature for such habitats. The collected daytime TIR data were ineffective in mapping (detecting) both archaeological structures and natural springs (seeps). The inability of the daytime TIR data to detect archaeological structures is attributed to the low thermal sensitivity (0.3 °C) of the collected data. The detection of subtle thermal differences between geologic materials requires sensitivities of at least 0.1 °C, which can be obtained by most TIR sensors using an appropriate gain setting. Simultaneous data collection for both land and water purposes can be achieved using sensors that collect TIR data in two separate channels, each channel using a gain setting most appropriate for land or water. The detection of archaeological structures and natural water seeps would also be improved by collection of data after sunset, which would require a separate data acquisition from that providing surface water temperature data and therefore additional cost. At this point, the cost for acquiring TIR data is quite high ($620/river-km) compared to the potential benefits of the data, unless reflected-wavelength data are also collected that can satisfy other GCMRC protocol requirements (such as mapping riparian vegetation). This is especially true if multiple data acquisitions are required during the year for temporal analyses of backwater areas. The cost for these data cannot be totally mitigated by its ability to partly replace the need for ground surveys of backwaters because calibration of the TIR data will require some ground-truth data from warm backwater areas (in addition to low-temperature main-stem data). However, the airborne data can provide a product that cannot be approached by ground surveys, that being an instantaneous (2 hour) map of surface water temperature over a 160-km stretch of the Grand Canyon.
Arizona↗
Colocating artificial intelligence data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands—A science synthesis and spatial analysis to inform decision making
Executive Summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and economies, creating an urgent need to strategically plan for the energy and infrastructure required to support increasing AI use. U.S. Federal agencies and bureaus have been directed to explore ways to accelerate permitting, development, and deployment of energy resources and AI technologies, including encouraging the colocation of energy infrastructure and data centers. To inform these initiatives, this report synthesizes relevant scientific information and presents a spatial analysis of existing energy infrastructure and data centers on or near U.S. Federal public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of this science synthesis and spatial analysis is to provide the BLM with foundational information for considering potential colocation of data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands to support evidence-based decisions. Additionally, this report provides insight into current (2025) and potential future energy demands by providing projections of a range of potential future environmental conditions relevant to maintaining industry-recommended cooling temperature standards necessary for efficient data center operations. As a part of this effort, a rapid response literature review was conducted of the best available science on the topic of data center development and energy infrastructure in July–August 2025, supplemented by additional resources recommended by U.S. Federal agency and bureau subject matter experts (hereafter experts; including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory of the Rockies) and peer reviewers. To better understand current conditions relevant to AI data center development, a spatial analysis was conducted across Alaska and 11 States in the Western United States, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, all of which contain extensive BLM-managed surface lands (hereafter referred to as “BLM lands”) that could be considered for the colocation of energy infrastructure and AI data centers. This effort identified BLM lands within 10 miles of existing transmission lines, consistent with methods used in previous BLM programmatic environmental impact statements. This report describes the types of data centers operating within the United States, which vary in ownership, size, technology, and proximity to end users. This report then outlines the primary considerations of data center development, including reliable energy supply, natural resources (such as water availability to support cooling requirements), and relevant policy and regulatory considerations. Energy supply considerations are pivotal for data center operation. Between 2014 and 2018, data centers in the United States accounted for nearly 2 percent of the Nation’s total electricity consumption, and data center energy consumption is projected to increase from 2 to 6.7–12 percent of total U.S. electricity use by 2028. These energy requirements necessitate careful consideration of energy supply when considering potentially suitable locations for data center development. Experts anticipate that an increase in renewable energy generation will likely support most potential future power demand needs, including for data centers, followed by increases in natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal energy production. Additional capacity in the form of battery storage will likely not generate electricity, but may improve the reliability and flexibility of supply, helping to ensure that growing data center loads can be met. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States will need, on average, 57 percent more energy transmission infrastructure by 2035 to account for the growing power demand introduced by development such as data centers. Cooling server equipment in data centers requires large amounts of electricity and water, and this demand can be exacerbated by hot and humid conditions. Energy efficient water-based cooling technologies may reduce electricity consumption onsite but require more water consumption. This additional water demand has the potential to increase water stress and competition with other users. As such, developing data centers will likely need a thorough assessment of current and potential future water availability, as well as consideration of how water demand may change across other sectors. Data center development involves policy and regulatory considerations, as projects must undergo environmental review and authorization processes that can take 18–24 months. Coordinating these environmental reviews and authorizations with other energy development projects, such as building new transmission lines, may cause additional delays. Recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior aim to expedite environmental reviews and authorizations and improve coordination across agencies. The spatial analysis identified 771 existing AI data centers and more than 3,300 power plants. The spatial analysis found that 6 percent of AI data centers and 22 percent of power plants in the Western United States were on or within 1 mile of BLM lands, and California had the largest number of facilities. Most existing AI data centers were near high-voltage transmission lines and close to power plants, supporting efficient energy delivery. More than 90,000,000 acres of BLM lands were within 10 miles of existing high-voltage transmission lines, representing 38 percent of BLM lands in the study area. Available transmission infrastructure and the overlap with BLM lands varied by State, and Alaska had limited overlap compared to the rest of the Western United States. To operate most efficiently, data center temperatures must be at or below 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis of future temperature and precipitation projections indicated increasing cooling demands for data centers, particularly in Arizona, California, and Nevada, where rising temperatures are expected to increase energy and operational costs while potentially stressing current regional electrical grid infrastructure. This report highlights relevant energy supply, natural resources, and regulatory considerations for data center development on BLM lands. This report does not provide a comprehensive ecological, regulatory, land suitability, or permitting analysis. The factors described here are contextual considerations only and are not intended to identify, rank, quantify, or recommend optimal areas for data center colocation. This spatial analysis focused solely on energy considerations relevant to data centers and did not consider water availability, critical habitats, BLM National Conservation Lands, areas of cultural or historical significance, and other sensitive resources. These topics are recognized as critical but were not within the scope of this science synthesis and spatial analysis.
Scientific Investigations Report↗
Data-base system for northern Midwest regional aquifer-system analysis
The U.S. Geological Survey is conducting a study of the Cambrian and Ordovician aquifer system of the northern Midwest as part of a national series of Regional Aquifer-Systems Analysis (RASA). An integral part of this study will be a simulation of the ground-water flow regime using the Geological Survey's three-dimensional finite-difference model. The first step in the modeling effort is the design and development of a systematic set of processes to facilitate the collection, evaluation, manipulation, and use of large quantities of information. A computerized data-base system to accomplish these goals has been completed for the northern Midwest RASA. The input to the data-base system consists of either point values or contour maps of the hydrogeologic data required by the model. Digital samples of contoured surfaces are obtained by machine digitization. Uniformly spaced model-node values are then computed from the discrete data by two-dimensional interpolation. The interpolator uses the regional (long wavelength) characteristics of the data to compute a surface with minimum total curvature. Local (short wavelength) data are merged with the regional surface to produce the model-node values at the desired spacing. Nonuniformly spaced nodal values may be obtained by fitting two-dimensional polynomials (bicubic splines) to surfaces formed by uniformly spaced points and solving for the surface values at the node locations. The uniformly or nonuniformly spaced node values constitute the output of the data-base system and in turn are the input arrays of data values for the ground-water flow model. Management of the data base is facilitated by forming a data file for each model input parameter and for other hydrogeologic data used in the study. The data files are subdivided into elements consisting of individual model-layer arrays. In this form the data base can be readily accessed and edited. In addition to the interpolation programs, software components of the system include programs: (1) to transform geographic coordinates on a Lambert conformal conic projection to cartesian coordinates and vice versa, (2) to machine contour gridded data, (3) to expedite manipulation and editing of data, and (4) to perform various interarray computations. The data-base system has the following attributes: (1) manual handling of data is minimized and machine handling of data is maximized, (2) given unequally spaced point data over the extent of a study area, model input arrays for any reasonable uniform node spacing can be rapidly computed, (3) accuracy of computed node values are generally compatible with accuracy and spatial distribution of point data, (4) a relatively large class of nonuniformly spaced node configurations can be computed, (5) data within data-base files can be easily accessed and readily edited, and (6) the occurrence of data processing errors at various stages of data-base generation is monitored by machine contouring the computed grids. Functioning of the data-base system is illustrated by the sequence of steps required to produce a model-input array of transmissivity, given raw geologic and hydraulic conductivity data.
Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
Data compilation and assessment for water resources in Pennsylvania state forest and park lands
As a result of a cooperative study between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PaDCNR), available electronic data were compiled for Pennsylvania state lands (state forests and parks) to allow PaDCNR to initially determine if data exist to make an objective evaluation of water resources for specific basins. The data compiled included water-quantity and water-quality data and sample locations for benthic macroinvertebrates within state-owned lands (including a 100-meter buffer around each land parcel) in Pennsylvania. In addition, internet links or contacts for geographic information system coverages pertinent to water-resources studies also were compiled. Water-quantity and water-quality data primarily available through January 2007 were compiled and summarized for site types that included streams, lakes, ground-water wells, springs, and precipitation. Data were categorized relative to 35 watershed boundaries defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for resource-management purposes. The primary sources of continuous water-quantity data for Pennsylvania state lands were the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Weather Service (NWS). The USGS has streamflow data for 93 surface-water sites located in state lands; 38 of these sites have continuous-recording data available. As of January 2007, 22 of these 38 streamflow-gaging stations were active; the majority of active gaging stations have over 40 years of continuous record. The USGS database also contains continuous ground-water elevation data for 32 wells in Pennsylvania state lands, 18 of which were active as of January 2007. Sixty-eight active precipitation stations (primarily from the NWS network) are located in state lands. The four sources of available water-quality data for Pennsylvania state lands were the USGS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP), and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The water-quality data, which were primarily collected after 1970, were summarized by categorizing the analytical data for each site into major groups (for example, trace metals, pesticides, major ions, etc.) for each type (streams, lakes, ground-water wells, and springs) of data compiled. The number of samples and number of detections for each analyte within each group also were summarized. A total of 410 stream sites and 205 ground-water wells in state lands had water-quality data from the available data sets, and these sites were well-distributed across the state. A total of 107 lakes and 47 springs in state lands had water-quality data from the available data sets, but these data types were not well-distributed across the state; the majority of water-quality data for lakes was in the western or eastern sections of the state and water-quality data for springs was primarily located in the central part of the Lower Susquehanna River Valley. The most common types of water-quality data collected were major ions, trace elements, and nutrients. Physical parameters, such as water temperature, stream discharge, or water level, typically were collected for most water-quality samples. Given the large database available from PaDEP for benthic macroinvertebrates, along with some data from other agencies, there is very good distribution of benthic-macroinvertebrate data for state lands. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 1,077 locations in state lands from 1973 to 2006. Most (980 samples) of the benthic-macroinvertebrate samples were collected by PaDEP as part of the state assessment of stream conditions required by the Clean Water Act. Data compiled in this report can be used for various water-resource issues, such as basin-wide water-budget analysis, studies of ecological or instream flow, or water-quality assessments. The determination of an annual water budget in selected basins is best supported by the availab
Pennsylvania↗
A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata
Leaf-level gas exchange data support the mechanistic understanding of plant fluxes of carbon and water. These fluxes inform our understanding of ecosystem function, are an important constraint on parameterization of terrestrial biosphere models, are necessary to understand the response of plants to global environmental change, and are integral to efforts to improve crop production. Collection of these data using gas analyzers can be both technically challenging and time consuming, and individual studies generally focus on a small range of species, restricted time periods, or limited geographic regions. The high value of these data is exemplified by the many publications that reuse and synthesize gas exchange data, however the lack of metadata and data reporting conventions make full and efficient use of these data difficult. Here we propose a reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata to provide guidance to data contributors on how to store data in repositories to maximize their discoverability, facilitate their efficient reuse, and add value to individual datasets. For data users, the reporting format will better allow data repositories to optimize data search and extraction, and more readily integrate similar data into harmonized synthesis products. The reporting format specifies data table variable naming and unit conventions, as well as metadata characterizing experimental conditions and protocols. For common data types that were the focus of this initial version of the reporting format, i.e., survey measurements, dark respiration, carbon dioxide and light response curves, and parameters derived from those measurements, we took a further step of defining required additional data and metadata that would maximize the potential reuse of those data types. To aid data contributors and the development of data ingest tools by data repositories we provided a translation table comparing the outputs of common gas exchange instruments. Extensive consultation with data collectors, data users, instrument manufacturers, and data scientists was undertaken in order to ensure that the reporting format met community needs. The reporting format presented here is intended to form a foundation for future development that will incorporate additional data types and variables as gas exchange systems and measurement approaches advance in the future. The reporting format is published in the U.S. Department of Energy's ESS-DIVE data repository, with documentation and future development efforts being maintained in a version control system.
Ecological Informatics↗
Water Resources Data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 1998
INTRODUCTION The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Massachusetts and Rhode Island each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the States. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled 'Water Resources Data-Massachusetts and Rhode Island.' Hydrologic data are also available through the Massachusetts-Rhode Island District Home Page on the world-wide web (http://ma.water.usgs.gov). Historical data and real-time data (for sites equipped with satellite gageheight telemeter) are also available. The home page also contains a link to the U.S. Geological Survey National Home Page where streamflow data from locations throughout the United States can be retrieved. This report series includes records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; contents of lakes and reservoirs; and water levels of ground-water wells. This volume contains discharge records at 93 gaging stations; monthend contents of 4 lakes and reservoirs; water quality at 22 gaging stations; and water levels for 139 observation wells. Locations of these sites are shown in figures 1 and 2. Miscellaneous hydrologic data were collected at various sites that were not involved in the systematic data-collection program and are published as miscellaneous discharge measurements. The data in this report represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This series of annual reports for Massachusetts and Rhode Island began with the 1961 water year with a report that contained only data relating to the quantities of surface water. For the 1964 water year, a similar report was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year, the report format was changed to present, in one volume, data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to introduction of this series and for several water years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title 'Surface-Water Supply of the United States, Parts 1A and 1B.' For the 1961 through 1970 water years, the data were published in two 5-year reports. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941 through 1970 water years were published annually under the title 'Quality of Surface Waters of the United States,' and water levels for the 1939 through 1974 water years were published under the title 'Ground-Water Levels in the United States.' The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225-0286. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. These official Survey reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as 'U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report MARI-98-1.' For archiving and general distribution, the reports for 1971-74 water years also are identified as water-data reports. These water-data reports are for sale in paper copy or in microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Comme
Water Data Report↗
Water Resources Data Massachusetts and Rhode Island Water Year 1999
INTRODUCTION The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Massachusetts and Rhode Island each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the States. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled 'Water Resources Data-Massachusetts and Rhode Island.' Hydrologic data are also available through the Massachusetts-Rhode Island District Home Page on the world-wide web (http://ma.water.usgs.gov). Historical data and real-time data (for sites equipped with satellite gage-height telemeter) are also available. The home page also contains a link to the U.S. Geological Survey National Home Page where streamflow data from locations throughout the United States can be retrieved. This report series includes records of stage, discharge, and water quality of streams; contents of lakes and reservoirs; water levels of ground-water wells; and water quality of ground-water wells. This volume contains discharge records at 90 gaging stations; stage records at 2 gaging stations; monthend contents of 4 lakes and reservoirs; water quality at 31 gaging stations; water quality at 27 observation wells; and water levels for 139 observation wells. Locations of these sites are shown in figures 1 and 2. Short-term water-quality data were collected at 21 gaging stations and 27 observation wells and are shown in figure 3. Miscellaneous hydrologic data were collected at various sites that were not involved in the systematic data-collection program and are published as miscellaneous discharge measurements. The data in this report represent that part of the National Water Data System operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperating State and Federal agencies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This series of annual reports for Massachusetts and Rhode Island began with the 1961 water year with a report that contained only data relating to the quantities of surface water. For the 1964 water year, a similar report was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year, the report format was changed to present, in one volume, data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to introduction of this series and for several water years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Massachusetts and Rhode Island were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title 'Surface-Water Supply of the United States, Parts 1A and 1B.' For the 1961 through 1970 water years, the data were published in two 5-year reports. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941 through 1970 water years were published annually under the title 'Quality of Surface Waters of the United States,' and water levels for the 1939 through 1974 water years were published under the title 'Ground-Water Levels in the United States.' The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225-0286. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. These official Survey reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as 'U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report MARI-98-1.' For archiving and general d
Water Data Report↗
Documentation and analysis of a geographic information system application for combining data layers, using nonpoint-source pollution as an example
A geographical information system application has been developed that allows scientists to combine multiple data layers into a single data layer. This application provides an effective tool for identifying areas where the potential effect of the combination of data layers may be greater than any single data layer. Such a tool is useful in studying an activity that cannot be measured directly. Scientists wanting to identify areas where an activity may have the greatest effect can identify factors that directly or indirectly reflect the effect of the activity being studied. When combined, these factors would identify areas where the potential for the activity to have an effect are greatest. The data layers used to develop the single data layer determine the activity addressed by the application?the application was developed to identify areas where the potential for nonpoint-source pollution to affect areas of Indiana is greater relative to other areas in Indiana. To evaluate the potential in other states or areas, data layers for those states or areas would be used. To address a different activity, even activities not related to water resources, data layers that directly or indirectly reflect the effects of the activity being studied would be used in the application. The application was developed using Environmental System Research Institute's ArcView geographical information system and the ArcView extension, Spatial Analyst. To use the application, the user selects data layers related to the activity being studied, describes the variability of a data element between geographic areas on each data layer, assigns a relative importance factor to each data layer, and focuses the output by identifying a watershed of interest. The application then assigns a rank value to the features within each data layer on the basis of the spatial variation of the data layer. The data layers are converted to grids. The values of the grid cells are the product of the rank values and the importance factors. The cells for each data layer are combined to form a single grid. The combination is summarized to describe the spatial variation for the watershed of interest. The combined data layer does not show the actual potential effect of the selected factors but rather the relative difference in the potential effect among areas when all data layers are considered. An analysis of the application indicates that the selected data layers to be combined should be at the greatest spatial resolution possible; however, all data layers do not have to be at the same spatial resolution. The spatial variation of the data layers should be adequately defined. The size of each grid cell should be small enough to maintain the spatial definition of smaller features within the data layers. The most accurate results are shown to occur when the values for the grid cells representing the individual data layers are summed and the mean of the summed grid-cell values is used to describe the watershed of interest.
Indiana↗
User's manual for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program Invertebrate Data Analysis System (IDAS) software, version 5
The Invertebrate Data Analysis System (IDAS) software was developed to provide an accurate, consistent, and efficient mechanism for analyzing invertebrate data collected as part of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. The IDAS software is a stand-alone program for personal computers that run Microsoft Windows(Registered). It allows users to read data downloaded from the NAWQA Program Biological Transactional Database (Bio-TDB) or to import data from other sources either as Microsoft Excel(Registered) or Microsoft Access(Registered) files. The program consists of five modules: Edit Data, Data Preparation, Calculate Community Metrics, Calculate Diversities and Similarities, and Data Export. The Edit Data module allows the user to subset data on the basis of taxonomy or sample type, extract a random subsample of data, combine or delete data, summarize distributions, resolve ambiguous taxa (see glossary) and conditional/provisional taxa, import non-NAWQA data, and maintain and create files of invertebrate attributes that are used in the calculation of invertebrate metrics. The Data Preparation module allows the user to select the type(s) of sample(s) to process, calculate densities, delete taxa on the basis of laboratory processing notes, delete pupae or terrestrial adults, combine lifestages or keep them separate, select a lowest taxonomic level for analysis, delete rare taxa on the basis of the number of sites where a taxon occurs and (or) the abundance of a taxon in a sample, and resolve taxonomic ambiguities by one of four methods. The Calculate Community Metrics module allows the user to calculate 184 community metrics, including metrics based on organism tolerances, functional feeding groups, and behavior. The Calculate Diversities and Similarities module allows the user to calculate nine diversity and eight similarity indices. The Data Export module allows the user to export data to other software packages (CANOCO, Primer, PC-ORD, MVSP) and produce tables of community data that can be imported into spreadsheet, database, graphics, statistics, and word-processing programs. The IDAS program facilitates the documentation of analyses by keeping a log of the data that are processed, the files that are generated, and the program settings used to process the data. Though the IDAS program was developed to process NAWQA Program invertebrate data downloaded from Bio-TDB, the Edit Data module includes tools that can be used to convert non-NAWQA data into Bio-TDB format. Consequently, the data manipulation, analysis, and export procedures provided by the IDAS program can be used to process data generated outside of the NAWQA Program.
Techniques and Methods↗
Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2000, Volume 1. Delaware River Basin
The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio River and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 1, contains: (1) discharge records for 76 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 7 partial-record stations, and 13 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 14 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 28 gaging stations and 14 ungaged streamsites; (4) water-quality records for 77 special-study stations; (5) water-level records for 53 network observation wells; and (6) water-quality analyses of ground water from 101 ground-water wells. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-00-1." These water data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginningwith the 1975 water year the report was changed to its present format of three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address given on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section, at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.
Water Data Report↗
Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2000. Volume 2. Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins
Introduction The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 2, contains: (1) discharge records for 83 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 16 partial-record stations, and 24 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 12 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 11 streamflow gaging stations and 70 partial-record and project stations; and (4) water-level records for 30 ground-water network observation wells and water-quality analyses of ground water from 8 wells; and (5) water-quality analyses at 60 special study ground-water wells. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-00-2." These water-data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year the report was changed to three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published annually under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.
Water Data Report↗