SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “INformation”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,279 records · Page 71Linked to original sources

USGS2021

Capacity assessment for Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) and future integrated monitoring and predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Managers of our Nation’s resources face unprecedented challenges driven by the convergence of increasing, competing societal demands and a changing climate that affects the stability, vulnerability, and predictability of those resources. To help meet these challenges, the scientific community must take advantage of all available technologies, data, and integrative Earth systems modeling capacity to better inform resource and risk management decisions. This is the overarching goal of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision: “By 2030, the USGS will deliver well integrated observations and predictions of the future state of natural systems—water, ecosystems, energy, minerals, hazards—at regional and national scales, working primarily with federal, state, and academic partners to develop and operate the capability” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). Providing more integrated Earth systems science and actionable information to decision makers, stakeholders, and the public requires a better understanding of the depth and distribution of existing capacity (capabilities, tools, and techniques) across the Bureau. Identifying existing capacity is also a critical first step toward gap analysis and targeted investments to increase capacity over time. The USGS formed a Capacity Assessment Team (CAT) and charged it with (1) conducting a Request for Information (RFI) to identify existing USGS expertise and activities supportive of integrated and predictive science to inform decision making, (2) developing a strategy and proof-of-concept for a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, and (3) identifying lessons learned to inform development of best practices for future capacity assessment efforts. The RFI took the form of a survey, with content guided by the science and technology needs identified in a USGS report titled “Grand Challenges for Integrated U.S. Geological Survey Science—A Workshop Report” (Jenni and others, 2017). The 44-question survey provided respondents the ability to rate their level of experience with a suite of priority disciplines, analysis and modeling approaches, technologies, and stakeholder engagement strategies and to enter optional narrative text for supporting context. An introductory portion focused on general science capacity assessment, followed by three sections targeting capabilities related to the foundational components of EarthMAP: (1) data and information integration, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information. The survey results provided a high-level snapshot of USGS capacity in the targeted areas. Respondents (1,035 individuals) represented approximately 13 percent of the USGS across all mission areas and regions. Seventy-four percent of the respondents held a science-focused position title and the remainder had position titles in information technology, computer science, management, administrative, or other (contractors, volunteers, emeritus, and unknown). To provide greater insight into respondent capabilities and activities, information from the U.S. Department of the Interior and USGS enterprise information systems were used to further characterize topical expertise and organizational associations of survey respondents. To address the ongoing need to assess the Bureau’s capacity to address integrated predictive science priorities, the CAT developed a software-based proof-of-concept called the Integrated Science Assessment Information Database (iSAID) for assembling various information sources together toward making the full extent of USGS capabilities and scientific assets available for routine capacity assessment. This proof-of-concept is intended to serve as a catalyst for further development. The process of implementing the EarthMAP capacity assessment survey, analyzing survey responses, and developing the proof-of-concept resulted in lessons learned, findings, and recommendations. Example scenarios throughout the report demonstrate how capacity assessment data can inform science planning. Three overarching findings and recommendations are: (1) Finding: Capacity is limited in some critical disciplines, skills, and technology applications, but “sufficient” depends on the question and the need relative to availability at a given point in time. Recommendation: Develop an on-demand capacity assessment framework that enables rapid identification and evaluation of existing and available expertise to support decision needs as they arise. (2) Finding: Institutional barriers and lack of awareness constrain the ability of USGS staff to adopt new technologies, collaborate across administrative boundaries, and deliver actionable information to stakeholders in a timely manner. However, these barriers are not universally experienced. Recommendation: Pursue more targeted inquiries to clarify which institutional barriers are obstructing the adoption of new technologies and approaches or the sharing of expertise and equipment across organizational and regional boundaries. These inquiries should inform USGS leadership, mission areas, and regions whether policies can be revised or whether a lack of understanding is creating perceived obstacles. Highlight cases when staff have successfully adopted new technologies and approaches to advance EarthMAP priorities and provide actionable information in a timely manner to spread awareness of how perceived obstacles can be navigated and overcome when appropriate. (3) Finding: Examples of people and projects integrating across disciplines and scales and applying advanced approaches to meet complex stakeholder needs exist. Such examples provide transfer value across the spectrum from approach to decision making. Many projects, already underway, appear to meet elements of the EarthMAP vision, and the USGS has people who can provide leadership in multiple types of specific integrated science efforts. Recommendation: Use these findings as a starting point for near-term strategic planning for integrated science. Highlight, incentivize, and build on existing interdisciplinary predictive science and information delivery activities across the USGS to advance toward further realization of an EarthMAP capacity. The CAT efforts to develop and assess existing USGS capacity to advance the EarthMAP vision revealed a fundamental challenge for not only this effort but any effort to assess existing capacity: A considerable amount of thought, time, and effort is required to survey and assess capabilities and tools available to support a given need, yet best results are still likely to provide an incomplete assessment. To better meet the frequent need to assess capabilities, tools, products, and projects that address an expressed strategic priority, the CAT proposes the concept of an on-demand capacity assessment framework supported by a software package that dynamically pulls and integrates information from existing USGS information systems and public domain registries. Although existing USGS enterprise information systems currently lack the structure, cross-system consistency, interoperability, and stability to support a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, we identify reasonable near-term steps to improve the utility of information gathered on expertise and project capacity and to improve the consistency and completeness of information and the ability of USGS systems to share that information. The ability to search and characterize this information will make future assessments of capacity faster, more complete, more efficient, and more targeted. This approach would grow the Bureau’s capacity knowledge over time, iteratively improving the ability to access, leverage, and synthesize existing capabilities and assets as well as identify and fill critical gaps. The greatest promise for developing integrated science could lie in linking across existing projects and expertise to create a multi-project capacity for addressing large, complex environmental issues.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Role of social media and networking in volcanic crises and communication

The growth of social media as a primary and often preferred news source has contributed to the rapid dissemination of information about volcanic eruptions and potential volcanic crises as an eruption begins. Information about volcanic activity comes from a variety of sources: news organisations, emergency management personnel, individuals (both public and official) and volcano monitoring agencies. Once posted, this information is easily shared, increasing the reach to a much broader population than the original audience. The onset and popularity of social media as a vehicle for eruption information dissemination has presented many benefits as well as challenges, and points towards a need for a more unified system for information. This includes volcano observatories using social media as an official channels to distribute activity statements, forecasts and predictions on social media, in addition to the archiving of images and data activity. This chapter looks at two examples of projects that collect / disseminate information regarding volcanic crises and eruptive activity utilizing social media sources. Based on those examples, recommendations are made to volcanic observatories in relation to the use of social media as a two-way communication tool. These recommendations include: using social media as a two-way dialogue to communicate and receive information directly from the public and other sources; stating that the social media account is from an official source; and, posting types of information that the public are seeking such as images, videos and figures.

Book chapter↗

USGS1998

Geospatial Technology Applications and Infrastructure in the Biological Resources Division

Executive Summary -- Automated spatial processing technology such as geographic information systems (GIS), telemetry, and satellite-based remote sensing are some of the more recent developments in the long history of geographic inquiry. For millennia, humankind has endeavored to map the Earth's surface and identify spatial relationships. But the precision with which we can locate geographic features has increased exponentially with satellite positioning systems. Remote sensing, GIS, thematic mapping, telemetry, and satellite positioning systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are tools that greatly enhance the quality and rapidity of analysis of biological resources. These technologies allow researchers, planners, and managers to more quickly and accurately determine appropriate strategies and actions. Researchers and managers can view information from new and varying perspectives using GIS and remote sensing, and GPS receivers allow the researcher or manager to identify the exact location of interest. These geospatial technologies support the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division (BRD) and the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) by providing a cost-effective and efficient method for collection, analysis, and display of information. The BRD mission is 'to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources.' A major responsibility of the BRD is to develop and employ advanced technologies needed to synthesize, analyze, and disseminate biological and ecological information. As the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) states, 'fulfilling this mission depends on effectively balancing the immediate need for information to guide management of biological resources with the need for technical assistance and long-range, strategic information to understand and predict emerging patterns and trends in ecological systems.' Information sharing plays a key role in nearly everything BRD does. The Strategic Science Plan discusses the need to (1) develop tools and standards for information transfer, (2) disseminate information, and (3) facilitate effective use of information. This effort centers around the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), components of the National Information Infrastructure. The NBII and NSDI are distributed electronic networks of biological and geographical data and information, as well as tools to help users around the world easily find and retrieve the biological and geographical data and information they need. The BRD is responsible for developing scientifically and statistically reliable methods and protocols to assess the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources. Scientists also conduct important inventory and monitoring studies to maintain baseline information on these same resources. Research on those species for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has trust responsibilities (including endangered species and migratory species) involves laboratory and field studies of individual animals and the environments in which they live. Researchboth tactical and strategicis conducted at the BRD's 17 science centers and 81 field stations, 54 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units in 40 states, and at 11 former Cooperative Park Study Units. Studies encompass fish, birds, mammals, and plants, as well as their ecosystems and the surrounding landscape. Biological Resources Division researchers use a variety of scientific tools in their endeavors to understand the causes of biological and ecological trends. Research results are used by managers to predict environmental changes and to help them take appropriate measures to manage resources effectively. The BRD Geospatial Technology Program facilitates the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and informat

Information and Technology Report↗

USGS2010

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010

Each chapter of the 2010 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2009 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. For mineral commodities for which there is a Government stockpile, detailed information concerning the stockpile status is included in the two-page synopsis. National reserves information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM), before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves is a continuing process, and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Throughout the history of Mineral Commodity Summaries and its predecessor prior to 1978, Commodity Data Summaries, the presentation of resource data has evolved. Although world resources have been discussed each year, presentation of reserves and reserve base data varied. From 1957 through 1979, only reserves information was published in the reports, but from 1980 through 1987, only estimates of reserve base, a concept introduced by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) and the USGS in 1980, were published. Beginning in 1988, both reserves and reserve base information were listed for each mineral commodity where applicable and available. Prior to 1996, the minerals availability studies conducted by the USBM and work with international collaborators were the basis for reserve base data reported in Mineral Commodity Summaries. When the USBM was closed in 1996, this function was discontinued. Since that time, reserve base estimates have been updated to be consistent with changes in reserves, but the nonreserves component of the information upon which the reserve base data were estimated is not current enough to support defensible reserve base estimates. For that reason, publication of reserve base estimates was discontinued for Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2010 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗

USGS2009

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009

Each chapter of the 2009 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2008 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. For mineral commodities for which there is a Government stockpile, detailed information concerning the stockpile status is included in the two-page synopsis. Because specific information concerning committed inventory was no longer available from the Defense Logistics Agency, National Defense Stockpile Center, that information, which was included in earlier Mineral Commodity Summaries publications, has been deleted from Mineral Commodity Summaries 2009. National reserves and reserve base information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves and reserve base estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves and reserve base information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, common business practice, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves and reserve base information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves and reserve base information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves and reserve base reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves and reserve base estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves or reserve base to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves and reserve base is a continuing process, and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2009 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗

USGS2018

How and why Upper Colorado River Basin land, water, and fire managers choose to use drought tools (or not)

On the Western Slope of Colorado, variable climate and precipitation conditions are typical. Periods of drought—which may be defined by lack of water, high temperatures, low soil moisture, or other indicators—cause a range of impacts across sectors, including water, land, and fire management. The Western Slope’s Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) was one of the first pilot areas in which the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) implemented a drought early warning system (DEWS) in 2009. NIDIS presently supports eight regional DEWS; as of 2016, the UCRB DEWS has been incorporated into an expanded Intermountain West (IMW) DEWS. The selection of the UCRB for an initial DEWS reflects the regional importance of drought information for managing water supply for agriculture and other uses, and the need for effective decision support related to drought. Additionally, new drought information products were developed specifically for the UCRB DEWS, and a number of others have been created since 2009, adding to the preexisting toolkit for drought decision making. The various elements of the UCRB drought early warning system can be expected to be more or less suitable for the needs of different decision makers. As a result, the UCRB makes an ideal case study to examine the use of scientific information products and tools in which the broad decision context (managing drought) is defined, but information needs of current and prospective users vary. Thus decision makers will make varied choices about which of the available tools to use or not use, depending on the particular management and institutional context in which they work. This report investigates the factors that affect the choices of decision makers about whether and how to use particular information sources, products, and tools. The investigation focused on the following research questions: What decisions do managers make related to drought in the Upper Colorado region and particularly the Western Slope of Colorado? About which impacts of drought are they most concerned? What indicators and information products do decision makers rely on to manage for the impacts of drought in this region? How do decision makers find out about and choose between available drought information sources, products, and tools? What gaps (if any) do they perceive in currently available drought information and tools? Studies of decision support tools or information sources often concentrate on the known users of a given tool(s). Such an approach can yield useful information; it provides rich insight into the experiences of users and can suggest design modifications to make existing tools more effective. Yet it is not an effective approach to capture the perspectives and needs of prospective tool users or to investigate the factors that affect whether or not someone chooses to use tools in the first place. To overcome this challenge, in this study the author instead used a geographically based sampling strategy in which a range of natural resource managers from preidentified Federal management units and selected State agencies on the Western Slope were considered prospective users of tools. Prospective users were then asked to describe in an open-ended fashion what information and tools they do or do not use and why. This approach allowed for respondents to report both use and nonuse of tools, and thus the ability to identify factors that influence information and tool use choices by managers.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

Identifying transportation data and system needs for a Federal lands transportation data platform

Executive Summary Modern transportation and land-use planning efforts include information from many sources to address topics such as safety, efficiency, commercial, and social needs. This wide breadth of topics provides opportunities for collaboration and development of common tools for diverse users. In many cases, different information systems provide the spatial data and geographic content necessary for transportation and land-use planners to consider multiple lines of evidence. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and Federal Land Management Agency partners use detailed spatial and quantitative data to inform transportation decisions. However, logistic challenges to data sharing exist because data are often managed by separate agencies; data-exchange frameworks and interagency data agreements are insufficient; and consistency from aggregated data requires maintenance, coordination, and supporting infrastructure. The FLH and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively examined (1) use and availability of spatial data for transportation planning and (2) a possible mechanism to use more shared and consistent data in a common planning environment. The goals of this collaborative effort were to describe data needs from the perspective of planners and to identify opportunities for shared data resources. Results presented here focus on two workshops and a subsequent investigation of data and tools available from partner agencies. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe information used in transportation planning with geographic data; (2) identify spatially explicit data that inform transportation plans and could be shared among all partners; and (3) describe current platforms, planning and administrative opportunities, and potential barriers to developing an integrated planning tool. Key information and data needs were identified in three major classes: system, user, and influential factors. System data are parts of the transportation network and information about the condition of individual segments and the network. User data provide details about the function of the system and insights into potential needs; for example, user trips between source and destinations inform road and network demands that can lead to congestion and safety issues (in the future, user data might also include scenarios and projections based on land-use plans). Influential data represent social and environmental factors that influence transit demands and network conditions. These factors could be popular locations or seasonal events that influence demand and congestion; wildlife habitat or migration intersections that affect safety and management priorities; or geologic features that influence hazards, maintenance, and safety. Responses described here provide specific information for web-tool design and give a framework for interagency communication and cooperation to address specific information needs for integrated planning. Existing web-mapping and web-services, and the data that inform them, are also described. Commonly, these data are created and published by one agency, and the core users are outside of that agency; for example, threatened species distributions are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration by planners in advance of National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) evaluation. This report is provided to inform FLH leaders and Federal Land Management Agency partners by articulating user needs and requirements for integrated planning tool(s). Programmers creating a secure web-based data-sharing platform (with data-viewing, -analysis and -download functions) can use the information presented here to organize data and user interfaces. This integrated perspective can help FLH and Federal Land Management Agency partners develop transportation networks that better serve the needs of people in local communities and across States and the Nation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2004

Rhode Island Water Supply System Management Plan Database (WSSMP-Version 1.0)

In Rhode Island, the availability of water of sufficient quality and quantity to meet current and future environmental and economic needs is vital to life and the State's economy. Water suppliers, the Rhode Island Water Resources Board (RIWRB), and other State agencies responsible for water resources in Rhode Island need information about available resources, the water-supply infrastructure, and water use patterns. These decision makers need historical, current, and future water-resource information. In 1997, the State of Rhode Island formalized a system of Water Supply System Management Plans (WSSMPs) to characterize and document relevant water-supply information. All major water suppliers (those that obtain, transport, purchase, or sell more than 50 million gallons of water per year) are required to prepare, maintain, and carry out WSSMPs. An electronic database for this WSSMP information has been deemed necessary by the RIWRB for water suppliers and State agencies to consistently document, maintain, and interpret the information in these plans. Availability of WSSMP data in standard formats will allow water suppliers and State agencies to improve the understanding of water-supply systems and to plan for future needs or water-supply emergencies. In 2002, however, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a law that classifies some of the WSSMP information as confidential to protect the water-supply infrastructure from potential terrorist threats. Therefore the WSSMP database was designed for an implementation method that will balance security concerns with the information needs of the RIWRB, suppliers, other State agencies, and the public. A WSSMP database was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the RIWRB. The database was designed to catalog WSSMP information in a format that would accommodate synthesis of current and future information about Rhode Island's water-supply infrastructure. This report documents the design and implementation of the WSSMP database. All WSSMP information in the database is, ultimately, linked to the individual water suppliers and to a WSSMP 'cycle' (which is currently a 5-year planning cycle for compiling WSSMP information). The database file contains 172 tables - 47 data tables, 61 association tables, 61 domain tables, and 3 example import-link tables. This database is currently implemented in the Microsoft Access database software because it is widely used within and outside of government and is familiar to many existing and potential customers. Design documentation facilitates current use and potential modification for future use of the database. Information within the structure of the WSSMP database file (WSSMPv01.mdb), a data dictionary file (WSSMPDD1.pdf), a detailed database-design diagram (WSSMPPL1.pdf), and this database-design report (OFR2004-1231.pdf) documents the design of the database. This report includes a discussion of each WSSMP data structure with an accompanying database-design diagram. Appendix 1 of this report is an index of the diagrams in the report and on the plate; this index is organized by table name in alphabetical order. Each of these products is included in digital format on the enclosed CD-ROM to facilitate use or modification of the database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2004

Converting analog interpretive data to digital formats for use in database and GIS applications

There is a growing need by researchers and managers for comprehensive and unified nationwide datasets of scientific data. These datasets must be in a digital format that is easily accessible using database and GIS applications, providing the user with access to a wide variety of current and historical information. Although most data currently being collected by scientists are already in a digital format, there is still a large repository of information in the literature and paper archive. Converting this information into a format accessible by computer applications is typically very difficult and can result in loss of data. However, since scientific data are commonly collected in a repetitious, concise matter (i.e., forms, tables, graphs, etc.), these data can be recovered digitally by using a conversion process that relates the position of an attribute in two-dimensional space to the information that the attribute signifies. For example, if a table contains a certain piece of information in a specific row and column, then the space that the row and column occupies becomes an index of that information. An index key is used to identify the relation between the physical location of the attribute and the information the attribute contains. The conversion process can be achieved rapidly, easily and inexpensively using widely available digitizing and spreadsheet software, and simple programming code. In the geological sciences, sedimentary character is commonly interpreted from geophysical profiles and descriptions of sediment cores. In the field and laboratory, these interpretations were typically transcribed to paper. The information from these paper archives is still relevant and increasingly important to scientists, engineers and managers to understand geologic processes affecting our environment. Direct scanning of this information produces a raster facsimile of the data, which allows it to be linked to the electronic world. But true integration of the content with database and GIS software as point, vector or text information is commonly lost. Sediment core descriptions and interpretation of geophysical profiles are usually portrayed as lines, curves, symbols and text information. They have vertical and horizontal dimensions associated with depth, category, time, or geographic position. These dimensions are displayed in consistent positions, which can be digitized and converted to a digital format, such as a spreadsheet. Once this data is in a digital, tabulated form it can easily be made available to a wide variety of imaging and data manipulation software for compilation and world-wide dissemination.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2009

Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits of the World - Database and Grade and Tonnage Models

Grade and tonnage models are useful in quantitative mineral-resource assessments. The models and database presented in this report are an update of earlier publications about volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits. These VMS deposits include what were formerly classified as kuroko, Cyprus, and Besshi deposits. The update was necessary because of new information about some deposits, changes in information in some deposits, such as grades, tonnages, or ages, revised locations of some deposits, and reclassification of subtypes. In this report we have added new VMS deposits and removed a few incorrectly classified deposits. This global compilation of VMS deposits contains 1,090 deposits; however, it was not our intent to include every known deposit in the world. The data was recently used for mineral-deposit density models (Mosier and others, 2007; Singer, 2008). In this paper, 867 deposits were used to construct revised grade and tonnage models. Our new models are based on a reclassification of deposits based on host lithologies: Felsic, Bimodal-Mafic, and Mafic volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits. Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments for two reasons: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types vary significantly, and (2) deposits of different types occur in distinct geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral-deposit models combine the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features and demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed deposit models allow geologists to deduce possible mineral-deposit types in a given geologic environment and economists to determine the possible economic viability of these resources. Thus, mineral-deposit models play a central role in presenting geoscience information in a useful form to policy makers. The foundation of mineral-deposit models is information about known deposits. The purpose of this publication is to present the latest geologic information and newly developed grade and tonnage models for VMS deposits in digital form. This publication contains computer files with information on VMS deposits from around the world. It also presents new grade and tonnage models for three subtypes of VMS deposits and a text file allowing locations of all deposits to be plotted in geographic information system (GIS) programs. The data are presented in FileMaker Pro and text files to make the information available to a wider audience. The value of this information and any derived analyses depends critically on the consistent manner of data gathering. For this reason, we first discuss the rules used in this compilation. Next, we provide new grade and tonnage models and analysis of the information in the file. Finally, the fields of the data file are explained. Appendix A gives the summary statistics for the new grade-tonnage models and Appendix B displays the country codes used in the database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1997

Collection and analysis of traditional ecological knowledge about a population of arctic tundra caribou

Aboriginal peoples want their ecological knowledge used in the management of wildlife populations. To accomplish this, management agencies will need regional summaries of aboriginal knowledge about long-term changes in the distribution and abundance of wildlife populations and ecological factors that influence those changes. Between 1983 and 1994, we developed a method for collecting Inuit knowledge about historical changes in a caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) population on southern Baffin Island from c. 1900 to 1994. Advice from Inuit allowed us to collect and interpret their oral knowledge in culturally appropriate ways. Local Hunters and Trappers Associations (HTAs) and other Inuit identified potential informants to maximize the spatial and temporal scope of the study. In the final interview protocol, each informant (i) established his biographical map and time line, (ii) described changes in caribou distribution and density during his life, and (iii) discussed ecological factors that may have caused changes in caribou populations. Personal and parental observations of caribou distribution and abundance were reliable and precise. Inuit who had hunted caribou during periods of scarcity provided more extensive information than those hunters who had hunted mainly ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ); nevertheless, seal hunters provided information about coastal areas where caribou densities were insufficient for the needs of caribou hunters. The wording of our questions influenced the reliability of informants' answers; leading questions were especially problematic. We used only information that we considered reliable after analyzing the wording of both questions and answers from translated transcripts. This analysis may have excluded some reliable information because informants tended to understate certainty in their recollections. We tried to retain the accuracy and precision inherent in Inuit oral traditions; comparisons of information from several informants and comparisons with published and archival historical reports indicate that we retained these qualities of Inuit knowledge.

Nunavut↗

USGS2002

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗

USGS2008

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2008

Each chapter of the 2008 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2007 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. National reserves and reserve base information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves and reserve base estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves and reserve base information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, common business practice, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves and reserve base information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves and reserve base information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves and reserve base reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves and reserve base estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves or reserve base to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves and reserve base is a continuing process and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2008 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗

USGS2003

Intrusive rock database for the Digital Geologic Map of Utah

Digital geologic maps offer the promise of rapid and powerful answers to geologic questions using Geographic Information System software (GIS). Using modern GIS and database methods, a specialized derivative map can be easily prepared. An important limitation can be shortcomings in the information provided in the database associated with the digital map, a database which is often based on the legend of the original map. The purpose of this report is to show how the compilation of additional information can, when prepared as a database that can be used with the digital map, be used to create some types of derivative maps that are not possible with the original digital map and database. This Open-file Report consists of computer files with information about intrusive rocks in Utah that can be linked to the Digital Geologic Map of Utah (Hintze et al., 2000), an explanation of how to link the databases and map, and a list of references for the databases. The digital map, which represents the 1:500,000-scale Geologic Map of Utah (Hintze, 1980), can be obtained from the Utah Geological Survey (Map 179DM). Each polygon in the map has a unique identification number. We selected the polygons identified on the geologic map as intrusive rock, and constructed a database (UT_PLUT.xls) that classifies the polygons into plutonic map units (see tables). These plutonic map units are the key information that is used to relate the compiled information to the polygons on the map. The map includes a few polygons that were coded as intrusive on the state map but are largely volcanic rock; in these cases we note the volcanic rock names (rhyolite and latite) as used in the original sources Some polygons identified on the digital state map as intrusive rock were misidentified; these polygons are noted in a separate table of the database, along with some information about their true character. Fields may be empty because of lack of information from references used or difficulty in finding information. The information in the database is from a variety of sources, including geologic maps at scales ranging from 1:500,000 to 1:24,000, and thesis monographs. The references are shown twice: alphabetically and by region. The digital geologic map of Utah (Hintze and others, 2000) classifies intrusive rocks into only 3 categories, distinguished by age. They are: Ti, Tertiary intrusive rock; Ji, Upper to Middle Jurassic granite to quartz monzonite; and pCi, Early Proterozoic to Late Archean intrusive rock. Use of the tables provided in this report will permit selection and classification of those rocks by lithology and age. This database is a pilot study by the Survey and Analysis Project of the U.S. Geological Survey to characterize igneous rocks and link them to a digital map. The database, and others like it, will evolve as the project continues and other states are completed. We release this version now as an example, as a reference, and for those interested in Utah plutonic rocks.

Utah↗

USGS2009

Carbonatites of the world, explored deposits of Nb and REE— Database and grade and tonnage models

This report is based on published tonnage and grade data on 58 Nb- and rare-earth-element (REE)-bearing carbonatite deposits that are mostly well explored and are partially mined or contain resources of these elements. The deposits represent only a part of the known 527 carbonatites around the world, but they are characterized by reliable quantitative data on ore tonnages and grades of niobium and REE. Grade and tonnage models are an important component of mineral resource assessments. Carbonatites present one of the main natural sources of niobium and rare-earth elements, the economic importance of which grows consistently. A purpose of this report is to update earlier publications. New information about known deposits, as well as data on new deposits published during the last decade, are incorporated in the present paper. The compiled database (appendix 1; linked to right) contains 60 explored Nb- and REE-bearing carbonatite deposits - resources of 55 of these deposits are taken from publications. In the present updated grade-tonnage model we have added 24 deposits comparing with the previous model of Singer (1998). Resources of most deposits are residuum ores in the upper part of carbonatite bodies. Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments for two reasons: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types vary significantly, and (2) deposits of different types are present in distinct geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral-deposit models combine the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features and demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed deposit models allow geologists to deduce possible mineral-deposit types in a given geologic environment, and the grade and tonnage models allow economists to estimate the possible economic viability of these resources. Thus, mineral-deposit models play a central role in presenting geoscience information in a useful form to policy makers. The foundation of mineral-deposit models is information about known deposits. This publication presents the latest geologic information and newly developed grade and tonnage models for Nb- and REE-carbonatite deposits in digital form. The publication contains computer files with information on deposits from around the world. It also contains a text file allowing locations of all deposits to be plotted in geographic information system (GIS) programs. The data are presented in FileMaker Pro as well as in .xls and text files to make the information available to a broadly based audience. The value of this information and any derived analyses depends critically on the consistent manner of data gathering. For this reason, we first discuss the rules used in this compilation. Next, the fields of the database are explained. Finally, we provide new grade and tonnage models and analysis of the information in the file.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Updated numerical model with uncertainty assessment of 1950-56 drought conditions on brackish-water movement within the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio, Texas

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System, began a study to assess the brackish-water movement within the Edwards aquifer (more specifically the potential for brackish-water encroachment into wells near the interface between the freshwater and brackish-water transition zones, referred to in this report as the transition-zone interface) and effects on spring discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs under drought conditions using a numerical model. The quantitative targets of this study are to predict the effects of higher-than-average groundwater withdrawals from wells and drought-of-record rainfall conditions of 1950–56 on (1) dissolved-solids concentration changes at production wells near the transition-zone interface, (2) total spring discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs, and (3) the groundwater head (head) at Bexar County index well J-17. The predictions of interest, and the parameters implemented into the model, were evaluated to quantify their uncertainty so the results of the predictions could be presented in terms of a 95-percent credible interval. The model area covers the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer; the history-matching effort was focused on the San Antonio segment. A previously developed diffuse-flow model of the Edwards aquifer, which forms the basis for the model in this assessment, is primarily based on a conceptualization in which flow in the aquifer is predominately through a network of numerous small fractures and openings. Primary updates to this model include an extension of the active area downdip, a conversion to an 8-layer SEAWAT variable-density flow and transport model to simulate dissolved-solids concentration effects on water density, history matching to 1999–2009 conditions, and parameter estimation in a highly parameterized context using automated methods in PEST (a model-independent Parameter ESTimation code). In addition to the best-fit parameter values derived from history matching, the uncertainty of model parameters was also estimated by using linear uncertainty analysis. Comparison of “prior” (before history matching) and “posterior” (after history matching) variances of parameters indicate that the information within the observation dataset used for history matching informs many parameters. The concentration threshold parameters were well-informed by the observation dataset as their posterior distributions were much narrower than their prior distributions. The transition-zone scaling parameters of hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, and specific storage were all informed by the observation dataset, as evidenced by the difference between the prior and posterior variances. Saline-zone scaling parameters, alternatively, were not informed by the observation dataset for effective porosity and specific storage. Resulting posterior drier-month, wetter-month, and annual recharge multiplier parameter variances are important to understanding how well recharge is estimated and implemented within the model. The shifts of the posterior distributions left and right indicate that there were zones where less or more water was needed in the model. The widths of the distributions were not decreased substantially, indicating that many of the best-fit recharge parameters are not statistically different from the initial values specified in the history-matching effort. Recharge from rainfall is the driving force behind groundwater flow and heads in the aquifer; therefore, an increase in understanding of this process would benefit model development by potentially decreasing the uncertainty of this parameter. The history-matching effort was most helpful in informing the parameters in the model that control discharge at springs, namely, the spring orifice (drain) altitude and drain conductance parameters for each spring. The uncertainty assessment of the predictive model (a hypothetical recurrence of 1950–56 drought conditions and higher-than-average groundwater withdrawals from wells) provided insights into the potential effects of these conditions on dissolved-solids concentration changes at production wells near the transition-zone interface, discharges at Comal and San Marcos Springs, and heads at Bexar County index well J-17. Results at the 25 production wells near the transition-zone interface indicate that the uncertainty of model input parameters based on expert knowledge yielded an upper bound of the 95-percent credible interval of dissolved-solids concentrations that exceeds the secondary drinking water standards of 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for many wells. However, the history-matching process provided key information to inform prediction-sensitive model parameters and therefore, contributed to a substantial decrease of the upper bound of the 95-percent credible interval to below the secondary drinking water standards. Reductions in dissolved-solids concentration changes were on the order of 400 mg/L to 1,300 mg/L. The reduction in uncertainty in regards to this prediction implies that this prediction of dissolved-solids concentration change can be made with some certainty using this current model and that those parameters that control this prediction are informed by the observation dataset. Even though predictive uncertainty was reduced for this prediction, dissolved-solids concentration changes were still greater than zero, indicating a minimal increase in concentration at these 25 production wells during the 7-year simulation period is likely. However, this minimal concentration increase indicates a small potential for movement of the brackish-water transition zone near these wells during the 7-year simulation period of drought-ofrecord (1950–56) rainfall conditions with higher-than-average groundwater withdrawals by wells. Predictive results of total spring discharge during the 7-year period, as well as head predictions at Bexar County index well J-17, were much different than the dissolved-solids concentration change results at the production wells. These upper bounds are an order of magnitude larger than the actual prediction which implies that (1) the predictions of total spring discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs and head at Bexar County index well J-17 made with this model are not reliable, and (2) parameters that control these predictions are not informed well by the observation dataset during historymatching, even though the history-matching process yielded parameters to reproduce spring discharges and heads at these locations during the history-matching period. Furthermore, because spring discharges at these two springs and heads at Bexar County index well J-17 represent more of a cumulative effect of upstream conditions over a larger distance (and longer time), many more parameters (with their own uncertainties) are potentially controlling these predictions than the prediction of dissolved-solids concentration change at the prediction wells, and therefore contributing to a large posterior uncertainty.

Texas↗

USGS2015

Aftershock communication during the Canterbury Earthquakes, New Zealand: Implications for response and recovery in the built environment

On 4 September 2010, a Mw7.1 earthquake occurred in Canterbury, New Zealand. Following the initial earthquake, an aftershock sequence was initiated, with the most significant aftershock being a Mw6.3 earthquake occurring on 22 February 2011. This aftershock caused severe damage to the city of Christchurch and building failures that killed 185 people. During the aftershock sequence it became evident that effective communication of aftershock information (e.g., history and forecasts) was imperative to assist with decision making during the response and recovery phases of the disaster, as well as preparedness for future aftershock events. As a consequence, a joint JCDR-USGS research project was initiated to investigate: • How aftershock information was communicated to organisations and to the public; • How people interpreted that information; • What people did in response to receiving that information; • What information people did and did not need; and • What decision-making challenges were encountered relating to aftershocks. Research was conducted by undertaking focus group meetings and interviews with a range of information providers and users, including scientists and science advisors, emergency managers and responders, engineers, communication officers, businesses, critical infrastructure operators, elected officials, and the public. The interviews and focus group meetings were recorded and transcribed, and key themes were identified. This paper focuses on the aftershock information needs for decision-making about the built environment post-earthquake, including those involved in response (e.g., for building assessment and management), recovery/reduction (e.g., the development of new building standards), and readiness (e.g. between aftershocks). The research has found that the communication of aftershock information varies with time, is contextual, and is affected by interactions among roles, by other information, and by decision objectives. A number of general and specific insights into improving the communication of aftershock information are provided.

Canterbury↗