Geology Reports⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 1,315 records · Page 73Linked to original sources
USGS2009

NBII-SAIN Data Management Toolkit

The Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Informatics Program (2005-2009) recognizes the need for effective data management: Though the Federal government invests more than $600 million per year in biological data collection, it is difficult to address these issues because of limited accessibility and lack of standards for data and information...variable quality, sources, methods, and formats (for example observations in the field, museum specimens, and satellite images) present additional challenges. This is further complicated by the fast-moving target of emerging and changing technologies such as GPS and GIS. Even though these technologies offer new solutions, they also create new informatics challenges (Ruggiero and others, 2005). The USGS National Biological Information Infrastructure program, hereafter referred to as NBII, is charged with the mission to improve the way data and information are gathered, documented, stored, and accessed. The central objective of this project is a direct reflection of the purpose of NBII as described by John Mosesso, Program Manager of the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Informatics Program-GAP Analysis: At the outset, the reason for bringing about NBII was that there were significant amounts of data and information scattered all over the U.S., not accessible, in incompatible formats, and that NBII was tasked with addressing this problem...NBII's focus is to pull data together that truly matters to someone or communities. Essentially, the core questions are: 1) what are the issues, 2) where is the data, and 3) how can we make it usable and accessible (John Mosesso, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2006). Redundancy in data collection can be a major issue when multiple stakeholders are involved with a common effort. In 2001 the U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) estimated that about 50 percent of the Federal government's geospatial data at the time was redundant. In addition, approximately 80 percent of the cost of a spatial information system is associated with spatial data collection and management (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). These figures indicate that the resources (time, personnel, money) of many agencies and organizations could be used more efficiently and effectively. Dedicated and conscientious data management coordination and documentation is critical for reducing such redundancy. Substantial cost savings and increased efficiency are direct results of a pro-active data management approach. In addition, details of projects as well as data and information are frequently lost as a result of real-world occurrences such as the passing of time, job turnover, and equipment changes and failure. A standardized, well documented database allows resource managers to identify issues, analyze options, and ultimately make better decisions in the context of adaptive management (National Land and Water Resources Audit and the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council on behalf of the Australian National Government, 2003). Many environmentally focused, scientific, or natural resource management organizations collect and create both spatial and non-spatial data in some form. Data management appropriate for those data will be contingent upon the project goal(s) and objectives and thus will vary on a case-by-case basis. This project and the resulting Data Management Toolkit, hereafter referred to as the Toolkit, is therefore not intended to be comprehensive in terms of addressing all of the data management needs of all projects that contain biological, geospatial, and other types of data. The Toolkit emphasizes the idea of connecting a project's data and the related management needs to the defined project goals and objectives from the outset. In that context, the Toolkit presents and describes the fundamental components of sound data and information management that are common to projects involving biological, geospatial, and other related data

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Sediment-hosted zinc-lead deposits of the world— Database and grade and tonnage models

This report provides information on sediment-hosted zinc-lead mineral deposits based on the geologic settings that are observed on regional geologic maps. The foundation of mineral-deposit models is information about known deposits. The purpose of this publication is to make this kind of information available in digital form for sediment-hosted zinc-lead deposits. Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments: Grades and tonnages among deposit types are significantly different, and many types occur in different geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral-deposit models are the keystone in combining the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Too few thoroughly explored mineral deposits are available in most local areas for reliable identification of the important geoscience variables, or for robust estimation of undiscovered deposits - thus, we need mineral-deposit models. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features because the global models demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed and -constructed deposit models allow geologists to know from observed geologic environments the possible mineral-deposit types that might exist, and allow economists to determine the possible economic viability of these resources in the region. Thus, mineral-deposit models play the central role in transforming geoscience information to a form useful to policy makers. This publication contains a computer file of information on sediment-hosted zinc-lead deposits from around the world. It also presents new grade and tonnage models for nine types of these deposits and a file allowing locations of all deposits to be plotted in Google Earth. The data are presented in FileMaker Pro, Excel and text files to make the information available to as many as possible. 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 applied in this compilation. Next, the fields of the data file are considered. Finally, we provide new grade and tonnage models that are, for the most part, based on a classification of deposits using observable geologic units from regional-scaled maps.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1996

City of Flagstaff Project: Ground Water Resource Evaluation, Remote Sensing Component

Many regions, cities, and towns in the Western United States need new or expanded water resources because of both population growth and increased development. Any tools or data that can help in the evaluation of an area's potential water resources must be considered for this increasingly critical need. Remotely sensed satellite images and subsequent digital image processing have been under-utilized in ground water resource evaluation and exploration. Satellite images can be helpful in detecting and mapping an area's regional structural patterns, including major fracture and fault systems, two important geologic settings for an area's surface to ground water relations. Within the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Flagstaff Field Center, expertise and capabilities in remote sensing and digital image processing have been developed over the past 25 years through various programs. For the City of Flagstaff project, this expertise and these capabilities were combined with traditional geologic field mapping to help evaluate ground water resources in the Flagstaff area. Various enhancement and manipulation procedures were applied to the digital satellite images; the results, in both digital and hardcopy format, were used for field mapping and analyzing the regional structure. Relative to surface sampling, remotely sensed satellite and airborne images have improved spatial coverage that can help study, map, and monitor the earth surface at local and/or regional scales. Advantages offered by remotely sensed satellite image data include: 1. a synoptic/regional view compared to both aerial photographs and ground sampling, 2. cost effectiveness, 3. high spatial resolution and coverage compared to ground sampling, and 4. relatively high temporal coverage on a long term basis. Remotely sensed images contain both spectral and spatial information. The spectral information provides various properties and characteristics about the surface cover at a given location or pixel (that is, vegetation and/or soil type). The spatial information gives the distribution, variation, and topographic relief of the cover types from pixel to pixel. Therefore, the main characteristics that determine a pixel's brightness/reflectance and, consequently, the digital number (DN) assigned to the pixel, are the physical properties of the surface and near surface, the cover type, and the topographic slope. In this application, the ability to detect and map lineaments, especially those related to fractures and faults, is critical. Therefore, the extraction of spatial information from the digital images was of prime interest in this project. The spatial information varies among the different spectral bands available; in particular, a near infrared spectral band is better than a visible band when extracting spatial information in highly vegetated areas. In this study, both visible and near infrared bands were analyzed and used to extract the desired spatial information from the images. The wide swath coverage of remotely sensed satellite digital images makes them ideal for regional analysis and mapping. Since locating and mapping highly fractured and faulted areas is a major requirement for ground water resource evaluation and exploration this aspect of satellite images was considered critical; it allowed us to stand back (actually up about 440 miles), look at, and map the regional structural setting of the area. The main focus of the remote sensing and digital image processing component of this project was to use both remotely sensed digital satellite images and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to extract spatial information related to the structural and topographic patterns in the area. The data types used were digital satellite images collected by the United States' Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and French Systeme Probatoire d'Observation de laTerre (SPOT) imaging systems, along with a DEM of the Flagstaff region. The USGS Mini Image Processing Sy

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—Water resources

The Williston Basin has been a leading oil and gas producing area for more than 50 years. While oil production initially peaked within the Williston Basin in the mid-1980s, production rapidly increased in the mid-2000s, largely because of improved horizontal (directional) drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods. In 2012, energy development associated with the Bakken Formation was identified as a priority requiring collaboration toward improved timeliness of issuing permits for new wells combined with reasonable measures to maintain environmental quality. Shortly thereafter, the Bakken Federal Executive Group was created to address common challenges associated with energy development. The Bakken Federal Executive Group partner agencies identified a gap in current understanding of the cumulative environmental challenges attributed to energy development throughout the area, resulting in an effort to aggregate scientific data and identify additional research and information needs related to natural resources within areas of energy development in the Williston Basin. As part of this effort, water resources in the area (including groundwater; streams and rivers; and lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands) were characterized and described in terms of physical occurrence, flow characteristics, recharge, water quality, and water use. Similarly, waters produced during energy-development activities also were characterized even though these waters are not considered usable resources within the area. Groundwater resources were characterized by the major hydrogeologic units, or aquifers, identifying the units that supply most groundwater used for domestic, stock, agricultural, and industrial purposes. The groundwater characterization included other deeper hydrogeologic units in the Williston Basin that may be a useable source of water with treatment, have utility as a reservoir for reinjection of produced waters, or be a source of minerals and energy resources. A generalized groundwater budget and flow system identifying the sources of recharge (stream infiltration, precipitation, and movement [leakage] from other aquifers) and the general groundwater flow direction is included for each of the major hydrogeologic units. Rivers and streams within the Williston Basin with 10 or more years of continuous streamflow data were identified. For a subset of these sites, streamflow characteristics, including the monthly and annual mean flow, were generated to identify seasonal and interannual changes in streamflow and thus provide information on the drivers and reliability of streamflow at the seasonal or multiyear scale. Daily streamflow and annual extreme flows (peak and low flow) also were estimated for the subset of sites. The daily streamflow and annual extreme flow values provide information on short-term or extreme events that are relevant to infrastructure design and evaluating spills, leaks, or accidental discharges of water or petroleum products. Surface-water features (lakes, ponds, and wetlands) were classified using the Cowardin system and identified on the National Wetlands Inventory maps generated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The spatial distribution of the surface-water features was analyzed by State, county, and specifically in comparison to the Prairie Pothole Region. The proximity of the surface-water features to energy development infrastructure (specifically oil or gas well pads) was evaluated. It was determined that, although oil or gas wells are often near a surface-water feature, most surface-water features do not have wells nearby, with the exception of wells in the Prairie Pothole Region. Water-quality data were aggregated from two data sources: (1) the Water-Quality Portal, sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Water Quality Monitoring Council; and (2) a data compilation completed as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment project. The Water-Quality Portal integrates publicly available water-quality data from databases maintained by the USGS, EPA, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, including water-quality data from Tribal, State, and local databases. Water-quality data for 15 commonly measured water-quality constituents were aggregated for groundwater, rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs. For each aggregated dataset (groundwater, rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs), analyses of the water-quality data included summary statistics, maps of spatial distribution of constituent values, boxplots of constituent values by timeframe or hydrogeologic unit, spatial comparisons of site locations and constituent values to petroleum well density, and comparisons of the constituent values measured to EPA drinking-water standards/guidelines. Produced water includes all fluids brought to the surface along with the targeted hydrocarbons as part of the oil and gas exploration and extraction processes. These fluids may include formation water (waters that co-exist with rock/oil/gas), hydraulic fracturing fluids, and other combinations of water and chemicals used during oil and gas well drilling, development, treatments, recompletions, and workovers. Produced water datasets were aggregated from two sources: the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical database (ver. 2.1) and a series of projects focused specifically on sampling produced water in the Williston Basin from 2010 to 2014. The National Produced Waters Geochemical database was useful for a general understanding of produced-water chemistry. Produced waters are characterized by extreme salinity and contain elevated concentrations of other constituents (including arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, zinc, radium-226/radium-228, and ammonium) that could negatively affect water and aquatic resources if released. Produced waters also have a generally unique chemical (isotopic) signature that may be useful in tracking water from different geologic units; for example, the oxygen/deuterium and strontium ratio values measured in brine waters from the Bakken Formation are distinct from brines collected from other geologic units in the Williston Basin. Water-use information related to energy production in the area also was aggregated and summarized. The summary of water use is not limited to oil and gas production but includes water used to produce all types of energy resources in the Williston Basin, including coal/lignite, thermoelectric power, oil and gas, hydropower, biomass and biofuels, wind, geothermal, and solar. Each State has its own methods for regulating and reporting water usage within its jurisdiction. These methods can introduce problems when examining water use from sources, such as the Missouri River or Fox Hills aquifer, that are shared across political boundaries. Without the one-to-one match for usage types and amounts used from a water source, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive water budget for the water source being evaluated. A large amount of freshwater is required to prepare a well for oil and gas well production; in some cases, 3 to 7 million gallons of water are needed per well. The EPA estimates that hydraulic fracturing in the Williston Basin uses between 70 to 140 billion gallons per year. Water also is used for myriad other purposes related to ancillary oil and gas extraction. In addition to water used for immediate energy development, the expanded human workforce migrating into the area and other support staff who have moved into the area during the development also use water. Research and information needs were identified that could be relevant in the evaluation of the effects of energy development on water resources. Information needs related to the evaluation of groundwater resources include the following: improved potentiometric-surface maps for glacial units; availability of a uniform stream network digital geographic coverage that spans the international boundary with Canada; enhanced surface-water use information with regards to the gain and loss of streamflow to shallow groundwater, which would increase understanding groundwater and surface-water interactions; and expanded geophysical assessments. Gaps in the availability of streamflow data include the lack of information on ice-jam flooding despite potential for effects to infrastructure (pipelines, roads, and facilities) and an understanding of the cumulative effects of largely undocumented stock and diversion dams. Although this study resulted in the aggregation of a large quantity of water-quality data, the availability of consistently collected, systematically processed and reported data over large parts of the Williston Basin is sparse. Few samples have been analyzed for constituents that may indicate the effect of energy development on water resources. Constituents that could be considered include boron, chloride, bromide, iodine, fluoride, manganese, lithium, radium, strontium isotopes, volatile organic compounds, and isotopes of inorganic ions (such as hydrogen and carbon). Collaboration between Tribal, Federal, State, and local entities to identify a common study design, common monitoring constituents, and consistent sampling locations would generate datasets with broad utility and would likely result in overall cost savings for monitoring over time. Similarly, there is a need for standardized sample collection, processing, laboratory analytical methods, and the collection of ancillary data for produced waters sampling. Additional characterization of the range of chemical, microbial, and isotopic compositions and quantities of “end-member” produced waters, and the collection of time-series datasets to document the changes in produced waters during and after well development also were needs identified during this study. Water-use estimates would be improved through the implementation of comprehensive studies of water use from groundwater and surface-water sources using consistent methodologies across the Williston Basin. The submission of chemical and water data related to hydraulic fracturing collected by the oil and gas industry would add to the quantity of available data. Consistent implementation of regulations and monitoring controls across political boundaries (State, county, and international) would further improve the consistency of data available for the estimates of water use.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2022

2021 assessment of the Joint Fire Science Program’s Fire Science Exchange Network

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), on behalf of the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP), conducted an evaluation of the Fire Science Exchange Network (FSEN), which connects wildland fire scientists and practitioners through 15 individual exchanges across the United States to help address complex wildfire needs and challenges. The study was divided into two phases: The first phase was a literature review and synthesis from materials provided by the JFSP Board. Phase two, informed by the JFSP review, was an online survey sent to more than 16,000 exchange network users compiled from the electronic mailing lists for each exchange. Respondents were asked their opinions on the importance, quality, and delivery of information for 16 key fire science topics, the prioritization of FSEN objectives, and from where and to what extent respondents are gathering information on key topics. Overall, respondents believed that sharing information and building relationships are the most important objectives of the FSEN. Respondents believed the exchange network is successful in delivering information for many of the key science topics (for example, fire behavior, prescribed fire, firefighter safety, and incident management); gaps were identified in scientific resources available for some topics (for example, economic impacts, social science and human dimensions, Indigenous knowledge). Most respondents participated in one to two exchanges and relied heavily on their respondent location (the exchange in which they primarily live and [or] work) for information. Respondents also often relied on external sources outside of the exchange network. Regional patterns emerged in information gathering whereby respondents from exchanges in the western United States (for example, Northern Rockies, Southern Rockies, and Northwest) and respondents from exchanges in the eastern United States (for example, Southern, Oak Woodlands, and Tallgrass) frequently gathered information from each other.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2003

Estimated flood-inundation maps for Cowskin Creek in western Wichita, Kansas

The October 31, 1998, flood on Cowskin Creek in western Wichita, Kansas, caused millions of dollars in damages. Emergency management personnel and flood mitigation teams had difficulty in efficiently identifying areas affected by the flooding, and no warning was given to residents because flood-inundation information was not available. To provide detailed information about future flooding on Cowskin Creek, high-resolution estimated flood-inundation maps were developed using geographic information system technology and advanced hydraulic analysis. Two-foot-interval land-surface elevation data from a 1996 flood insurance study were used to create a three-dimensional topographic representation of the study area for hydraulic analysis. The data computed from the hydraulic analyses were converted into geographic information system format with software from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center. The results were overlaid on the three-dimensional topographic representation of the study area to produce maps of estimated flood-inundation areas and estimated depths of water in the inundated areas for 1-foot increments on the basis of stream stage at an index streamflow-gaging station. A Web site (http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/cowskin.floodwatch) was developed to provide the public with information pertaining to flooding in the study area. The Web site shows graphs of the real-time streamflow data for U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations in the area and monitors the National Weather Service Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center for Cowskin Creek flood-forecast information. When a flood is forecast for the Cowskin Creek Basin, an estimated flood-inundation map is displayed for the stream stage closest to the National Weather Service's forecasted peak stage. Users of the Web site are able to view the estimated flood-inundation maps for selected stages at any time and to access information about this report and about flooding in general. Flood recovery teams also have the ability to view the estimated flood-inundation map pertaining to the most recent flood. The availability of these maps and the ability to monitor the real-time stream stage through the U.S. Geological Survey Web site provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for evacuation and rescue efforts in the event of a flood as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1972

Water-temperature data acquisition activities in the United States

Along with the growing interest in water quality during the last decade, the need for data on all types of water-quality parameters has also increased. One parameter of particular interest, because of its many ramifications, is temperature. It influences many of the chemical and physical processes that take place in water. The solubility of gases--for example, oxygen and carbon dioxide--and the solution of mineral matter in water are functions of temperature. Such physical properties as density and viscosity vary with temperature. Oxidation of organic materials, as well as algal and bacterial growth, is promoted or retarded by favorable or unfavorable temperatures. Further, temperature bears on the utility of water: as a source of public water supplies; for industrial use, particularly if the water is used for cooling; and in the field of recreation involving contact sports, fishing, and fish culture. In recent years, temperature changes resulting from inflow of heated industrial waste, particularly effluent from power generating plants, have increased the need for temperature data to determine the degree of change, its effect on ecology, and the effect of any remedial action. Thus, because of the many extensive and intensive effects, a large amount of temperature data is collected on surface and ground waters by many agencies throughout the country. Moreover, because of its importance, there is a widespread interest in temperature even by those who are not active collectors of the data themselves. The industrialist, the manager, the public official, and others at one time or another may have need for temperature data and may well raise the questions: Who is collecting temperature data? What is the extent of the activity? Where are the data being collected? The purpose of this report is to answer these questions. The information in the report is confined to the activities of Federal and non-Federal agencies. It is based on information furnished to the Office of Water Data Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey, and published in the "Catalog of Information on Water Data, Index to Water Quality Section, Edition 1970." This is one of four indexes, each of which is a separate section of the Catalog. Three of the indexes, "Index to Water-Quality Section," "Index to Surface-Water Section," and "Index to Ground-.Water Stations," contain information on data acquired on a recurrent basis at specific locations for a period of 3 years or more. The fourth section, "Index to Areal Investigations and Miscellaneous Activities," is concerned with specific projects or shorter-term data activities that involve field or laboratory measurements or observations not included in any other section of the Catalog. The Catalog is a record of activities throughout the country (and in some places along the international border between the United States and Canada) conducted by Federal and non-Federal agencies engaged in the acquisition of water data and who furnish such information for presentation in the Catalog. The Catalog itself is an outgrowth of an assignment to the Department of the Interior and in turn to the Geological Survey, by the Office of Management and Budget, through the medium of OMB Circular A-67. This Circular states in part that one of the assigned responsibilities will be maintenance of a "central catalog of information on...water data and on Federal activities being planned or conducted to acquire such data." As an extension of this activity, non-Federal agencies are solicited to participate in the program. In this report, information is presented by means of tables and illustrations preceded by brief explanations. It includes the agencies collecting the data, the number of stations located on surface and ground waters where temperature measurements are made, the distribution of stations by States and by the 21 regions of the Water Resources Council (WRC) (a Federal agency created in accordance with the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965), and the frequency of measurements. Acquisition activities were not reported for those areas left blank on some illustrations. The report does not contain the actual temperature data. For this information, the particular agency, Federal or non-Federal, acquiring the data will have to be contacted. However, a bibliography at the end of this report lists 194 references which contain temperature data. Many of these references, especially the publications of the Geological Survey, may be available in major public and university libraries and libraries of Federal and non-Federal agencies.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2003

Estimation of change in populations and communities from monitoring survey data

Monitoring surveys provide fundamental information for use in environmental decision making by permitting assessment of both current population (or community) status and change in status, by providing a historical context of the present status, and by documenting response to ongoing management. Conservation of species and communities has historically been based upon monitoring information, and prioritization of species and habitats for conservation action often requires reliable, quantitative results. Although many monitoring programs exist for populations, species, and communities, as well as for biotic and abiotic features of the environment, estimation of population and community change from surveys can sometimes be controversial, and demands on monitoring information have increased greatly in recent years. Information is often required at multiple spatial scales for use in geographic information systems, and information needs exist for description of regional patterns of change in populations, communities, and ecosystems. Often, attempts are made to meet these needs using information collected for other purposes or at inappropriate geographic scales, leading to information that is difficult to analyze and interpret. In this chapter, we address some of the constraints and issues associated with estimating change in wildlife species and species groups from monitoring surveys, and use bird surveys as our primary examples.

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

Science-based management of public lands in southern Nevada

Landmark legislation provides guiding principles for land management planning in southern Nevada and the rest of the United States. Such legislation includes, but is not limited to, the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S>C. 473-478, 479-482 and 551), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (U.S.C. Title 16, Secs. 1-4). Wilderness Act 1964 (P.L.88-577), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 91-205), National Forest Management Act of of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579). The acts establishing congressionally designated areas within southern Nevada, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Spring Mountains National Restoration Area, and Desert National Wildlife Refuge, also contain guidelines for the management of these lands. These documents variously require preservation of natural and cultural resource and wilderness character, protection of species, and prevention of undesirable environmental effects from land management actions. These requirements must be met while allowing for multiple "uses" of certain public lands (e.g. recreation, ranching, resources extraction, renewable energy development, etc.) to the degree that they do no threaten preservation, protection, and prevention goals,. many considerations some into play in the development and implementation for land management plans and actions. The planning process requires a balancing act that sometimes pit one need or priority against another. When priorities can trump other needs can prioritized and receive disproportionate consideration. Overall, the management of public lands is a very complicated and sometime contentious process. Science provides an objective way to help weigh quantifiable information and draw conclusions about the effects of past and potential future land management policies, decisions, and actions. When effectively integrated into adaptive management, science-based information can reduce uncertainties, increase knowledge, and improve decision making. However, the specific science information needed for effective management is often lacking or difficult to access or interpret. Science is typically reported in scientific journals as discrete units describing individual studies with other scientists as the primary audience. Translations of these studies an synthesis or multiple studies into formats that can be readily used in land management planning efforts are often lacking. Identifying and articulating the highest priority science and research needs is one of the primary purposes of the Southern Nevada Agency Partnership (SNAP; http://www.SNAP.gov) Science and Research Team (chapter 1; Turner and others 2009). The SNAP Science and Research Strategy (Strategy) calls for a synthesis report to be written every 5 years summarizing the state of knowledge, information gaps and management implications of scientific information as it relates to the SNAP Strategy goals (Turner and others 2009). This General Technical Report serves as the first SNAP Science and Research Synthesis Report (Synthesis Report) commissioned by the Science and Research Team. The Synthesis Report is mostly based on information form the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and is itself peer reviewed and constitutes a new contribution to the scientific literature. This final chapter addresses Sub-goal 2.3, which is to manage current and future authorized southern Nevada land uses in a manner that balances public need and ecosystem sustainability, and Sub-goal 2.5, which is to promote an effective conservation education and interpretation program to improve the quality of resources and enhance public use and enjoyment of southern Nevada public lands. It summarizes information form the previous chapters on what scientific information is known currently and what remains largely unknown, and it discusses how science can be used to make future management decisions that balances public needs and ecosystem sustainability.

Nevada↗
USGS2008

GAP Analysis Bulletin Number 15

The Mission of the Gap Analysis Project (GAP) <http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov> is to promote conservation by providing broad geographic information on biological diversity to resource managers, planners, and policy makers who can use the information to make informed decisions. As part of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) <http://www.nbii.gov>?a collaborative program to provide increased access to data and information on the nation?s biological resources--GAP data and analytical tools have been used in hundreds of applications: from basic research to comprehensive state wildlife plans; from educational projects in schools to ecoregional assessments of biodiversity. The challenge: keeping common species common means protecting them BEFORE they become threatened. To do this on a state or regional basis requires key information such as land cover descriptions, predicted distribution maps for native animals, and an assessment of the level of protection currently given to those plants and animals. GAP works cooperatively with Federal, state, and local natural resource professionals and academics to provide this kind of information. GAP activities focus on the creation of state and regional databases and maps that depict patterns of land management, land cover, and biodiversity. These data can be used to identify ?gaps? in conservation--instances where an animal or plant community is not adequately represented on the existing network of conservation lands. GAP is administered through the U.S. Geological Survey. Through building partnerships among disparate groups, GAP hopes to foster the kind of collaboration that is needed to address conservation issues on a broad scale. For more information, contact: John Mosesso National GAP Director 703-648-4079 Kevin Gergely National GAP Operations Manager 208-885-3565

GAP Bulletin↗
USGS2023

A general approach for evaluating of the coverage, resolution, and representation of streamflow monitoring networks

Streamflow monitoring networks provide information for a wide range of public interests in river and streams. A general approach to evaluate monitoring for different interests is developed to support network planning and design. The approach defines three theoretically distinct information metrics (coverage, resolution, and representation) based on the spatial distribution of a variable of interest. Coverage is the fraction of information that a network can provide about a variable when some areas are not monitored. Resolution is the information available from the network relative to the maximum information possible given the number of sites in the network. Representation is the information that a network provides about a benchmark distribution of a variable. Information is defined using Shannon entropy where the spatial discretization of a variable among spatial elements of a landscape or sites in a network indicates the uncertainty in the spatial distribution of the variable. This approach supports the design of networks for monitoring of variables with heterogeneous spatial distributions (“hot spots” and patches) that might otherwise be unmonitored because they occupy insignificant portions of the landscape. Areas where monitoring will maintain or improve the metrics serve as objective priorities for public interests in network design. The approach is demonstrated for the streamflow monitoring network operated by the United States Geological Survey during water year 2020 indicating gaps in the coverage of coastal rivers and the resolution of low flows.

Colorado↗
USGS2016

Global biodiversity monitoring: from data sources to essential biodiversity variables

Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) consolidate information from varied biodiversity observation sources. Here we demonstrate the links between data sources, EBVs and indicators and discuss how different sources of biodiversity observations can be harnessed to inform EBVs. We classify sources of primary observations into four types: extensive and intensive monitoring schemes, ecological field studies and satellite remote sensing. We characterize their geographic, taxonomic and temporal coverage. Ecological field studies and intensive monitoring schemes inform a wide range of EBVs, but the former tend to deliver short-term data, while the geographic coverage of the latter is limited. In contrast, extensive monitoring schemes mostly inform the population abundance EBV, but deliver long-term data across an extensive network of sites. Satellite remote sensing is particularly suited to providing information on ecosystem function and structure EBVs. Biases behind data sources may affect the representativeness of global biodiversity datasets. To improve them, researchers must assess data sources and then develop strategies to compensate for identified gaps. We draw on the population abundance dataset informing the Living Planet Index (LPI) to illustrate the effects of data sources on EBV representativeness. We find that long-term monitoring schemes informing the LPI are still scarce outside of Europe and North America and that ecological field studies play a key role in covering that gap. Achieving representative EBV datasets will depend both on the ability to integrate available data, through data harmonization and modeling efforts, and on the establishment of new monitoring programs to address critical data gaps.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2014

An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming

Despite widespread recognition that social-value information is needed to inform stakeholders and decision makers regarding trade-offs in environmental management, it too often remains absent from ecosystem service assessments. Although quantitative indicators of social values need to be explicitly accounted for in the decision-making process, they need not be monetary. Ongoing efforts to map such values demonstrate how they can also be made spatially explicit and relatable to underlying ecological information. We originally developed Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) as a tool to assess, map, and quantify nonmarket values perceived by various groups of ecosystem stakeholders. With SolVES 2.0 we have extended the functionality by integrating SolVES with Maxent maximum entropy modeling software to generate more complete social-value maps from available value and preference survey data and to produce more robust models describing the relationship between social values and ecosystems. The current study has two objectives: (1) evaluate how effectively the value index, a quantitative, nonmonetary social-value indicator calculated by SolVES, reproduces results from more common statistical methods of social-survey data analysis and (2) examine how the spatial results produced by SolVES provide additional information that could be used by managers and stakeholders to better understand more complex relationships among stakeholder values, attitudes, and preferences. To achieve these objectives, we applied SolVES to value and preference survey data collected for three national forests, the Pike and San Isabel in Colorado and the Bridger–Teton and the Shoshone in Wyoming. Value index results were generally consistent with results found through more common statistical analyses of the survey data such as frequency, discriminant function, and correlation analyses. In addition, spatial analysis of the social-value maps produced by SolVES provided information that was useful for explaining relationships between stakeholder values and forest uses. Our results suggest that SolVES can effectively reproduce information derived from traditional statistical analyses while adding spatially explicit, social-value information that can contribute to integrated resource assessment, planning, and management of forests and other ecosystems.

Colorado;Wyoming↗
USGS2020

Science in action or science inaction? Evaluating the implementation of "best available science" in hydropower relicensing

Over the next two decades, half of all hydropower projects in the USA will require relicensing by the Federal Regulatory Commission (FERC). Relicensing proceedings invoke a range of informational sources and agency regulators are tasked with using the “best available science” (BAS) to make informed decisions about hydropower operations and management. Although embraced as the standard, BAS is not well-defined. The Kennebec and Penobscot River watersheds in Maine provide an ideal opportunity for studying BAS in the relicensing process. Using citation analysis and an online survey, we identified informational sources used in relicensing decisions for dams in this system and assessed agency perceptions of BAS. Analysis of relicensing documents (n=62) demonstrates that FERC and licensee documents are highly similar in citation composition. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) documents typically cite more sources and are three times more likely to cite peer-reviewed sources than FERC and licensee documents. Survey data reveals that federal and state agency respondents (n=49) rate peer-reviewed literature highly as BAS, followed by university, agency, and expert sources while industry and community sources rate poorly. Federal respondents report using peer-reviewed/academic sources more frequently and expert sources less frequently than state respondents. Overall, the agreement between individuals with respect to the valuation of sources is low. The reported differences in information use may be linked to disparities in the access to certain sources of information, particularly peer-reviewed literature. Enhanced understanding of information use may aid in identifying pathways for better informed relicensing decisions.

Maine↗
USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. USGS does not improve the quality of its customers' lives; it provides the informational tools for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other customers to understand and improve their own lives. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts 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, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native 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 2000. Some of these USGS activities were conducted in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In the year 2000, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Native Alaskans to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. More Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations are using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking such data from the USGS with greater frequency. The increasing use of such technologies allows Tribal governments 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 is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of these governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. 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, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involve collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects have a duration of two or three years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some are funded through cooperative agreements or reimbursable accounts, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (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 Bureau of Indian Affairs are cooperating to use USGS knowledge for the benefit of American Indian and 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 an individual or group of USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help us fulfill a mission of the USGS, to make science relevant, while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster knowledge 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, paying the costs themselves, yet 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. As USGS moves to a more regional organizational structure, it will establish contacts in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. Within the USGS, this report will help in developing outreach, educational, and program documents for use in future years. It is hoped that USGS employees, American Indians, and Alaska Natives will adapt these activities in new areas and will use the USGS contacts to expand the relevance of the USGS to more Americans.

Report↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗
USGS2013

Progress toward establishing a national assessment of water availability and use

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) was passed into law on March 30, 2009. Subtitle F, also known as the SECURE Water Act, calls for the establishment of a "national water availability and use assessment program" within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). A major driver for this recommendation was that national water availability and use have not been comprehensively assessed since 1978. This report fulfills a requirement to report to Congress on progress in implementing the national water availability and use assessment program, also referred to as the National Water Census. The SECURE Water Act authorized \$20 million for each of fiscal years (FY) 2009 through 2023 for assessment of national water availability and use. The first appropriation for this effort was \$4 million in FY 2011, followed by an appropriation of \$6 million in FY 2012. The National Water Census synthesizes and reports information at the regional and national scales, with an emphasis on compiling and reporting the information in a way that is useful to states and others responsible for water management and natural-resource issues. The USGS works with Federal and non-Federal agencies, universities, and other organizations to ensure that the information can be aggregated with other types of water-availability and socioeconomic information, such as data on food and energy production. To maximize the utility of the information, the USGS coordinates the design and development of the effort through the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information. A National Water Census is a complex undertaking, particularly because there are major gaps in the information needed to conduct such an assessment. To maximize progress, the USGS engaged stakeholders in a discussion of priorities and leveraged existing studies and program activities to enhance efforts toward the development of a National Water Census.

Circular↗