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 1,351 records · Page 75Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey sagebrush ecosystem research annual report for 2020

The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across 251,473 square miles over portions of 13 western States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, invasive plants, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and ensure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for more than 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as an iconic species of this ecosystem. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States, and 2 Canadian Provinces and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat; however, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, rely on various parts of the sagebrush ecosystem but only for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem, wildlife species within the ecosystem, and the species’ response to stressors and management actions. The program provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. By providing the science to inform these decisions, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards the goal of sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. This information can inform planning and management conducted by nongovernmental organizations as well. USGS research is tailored specifically to inform adaptive management, improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush, and restoring degraded landscapes. Examples of research support for partners include providing information for actions such as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans and land use. The USGS continues to provide foundational science to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Pollinator Science Strategy, 2025–35—A Review and Look Forward

This “U.S. Geological Survey Pollinator Science Strategy, 2025–35—A Review and Look Forward” (“Pollinator Science Strategy”) describes the science vision of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to support management, conservation, and policy decisions on animal pollinators and their habitats. As the science arm of the Department of the Interior, the USGS has a primary role in providing scientific information to natural resource managers and policymakers across the United States. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” was drafted by a team of USGS pollinator researchers and was further developed through feedback from Federal, State, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, and industry partners. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” highlights the USGS’s role in the research to promote healthy pollinator populations and address partner information gaps so they can make more informed management decisions. By outlining the importance of USGS science in addressing the information needs of other agencies, organizations, and the public, the “Pollinator Science Strategy” reaffirms the USGS’s commitment to pollinator research and showcases our research priorities for 2025–35. With more than 300 research centers nationally, the USGS is equipped to address pollinator science across scales of complexity and geographic range. USGS pollinator science is organized according to the following five thematic areas: Assessing species ecology, distributions, and natural history requirements. Tracking species status and trends. Understanding species threats and stressors. Informing restoration and management actions. Developing novel methods for improving pollinator research, monitoring, and population outcomes that can benefit our Nation. Our pollinator information products and associated data are made widely available to the public to ensure scientific transparency and accessibility. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” concludes with several research goals that the USGS will work towards from 2025 to 2035, representing our vision for USGS science. These research goals include synthesizing and modernizing the latest information on pollinator threats, developing research that assists managers with habitat design and restoration, providing training to partners on native bee identification and monitoring design, and developing new technologies for assessing the status and trends of our nation’s pollinators.

Circular↗
USGS1978

Description of CRIB, the GIPSY retrieval mechanism, and the interface to the General Electric MARK III Service : CRIB, the mineral resources data bank of the U.S. Geological Survey--guide for public users, 1977

The U.S. Geological Survey's Computerized Resources Information Bank (CRIB) is being made available for public use through the computer facilities of the University of Oklahoma and the General Electric Company, U.S.A. The use of General Electric's worldwide information-services network provides access to the CRIB file to a worldwide clientele. This manual, which consists of two chapters, is intended as a guide to users who wish to interrogate the file. Chapter A contains a description of the CRIB file, information on the use of the GIPSY retrieval system, and a description of the General Electric MARK III Service. Chapter B contains a description of the individual data items in the CRIB record as well as code lists. CRIB consists of a set of variable-length records on the metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources of the United States and other countries. At present, 31,645 records in the master file are being made available. The record contains information on mineral deposits and mineral commodities. Some topics covered are: deposit name, location, commodity information, description of deposit, geology, production, reserves, potential resources, and references. The data are processed by the GIPSY program, which maintains the data file and builds, updates, searches, and prints the records using simple yet versatile command statements. Searching and selecting records is accomplished by specifying the presence, absence, or content of any element of information in the record; these specifications can be logically linked to prepare sophisticated search strategies. Output is available in the form of the complete record, a listing of selected parts of the record, or fixed-field tabulations. The General Electric MARK III Service is a computerized information services network operating internationally by land lines, satellites, and undersea cables. The service is available by local telephone to 500 cities in North America, Western Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. An interface called the 'foreground driver' is used to link the GIPSY program to the General Electric system.

Circular↗
USGS2006

Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, a Digital Representation of Lyons and Others 1997 Map and Ancillary Files

The New Hampshire Geological Survey collects data and performs research on the land, mineral, and water resources of the State, and disseminates the findings of such research to the public through maps, reports, and other publications. The Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, by John B. Lyons, Wallace A. Bothner, Robert H. Moench, and James B. Thompson, was published in paper format by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1997. The online version of this CD contains digital datasets of the State map that are intended to assist the professional geologist, land-use planners, water resource professionals, and engineers and to inform the interested layperson. In addition to the bedrock geology, the datasets include geopolitical and hydrologic information, such as political boundaries, quadrangle boundaries, hydrologic units, and water-well data. A more thorough explanation for each of these datasets may be found in the accompanying metadata files. The data are spatially referenced and may be used in a geographic information system (GIS). ArcExplorer, the Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) free GIS data viewer, is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcexplorer. ArcExplorer provides basic functions that are needed to harness the power and versatility of the spatial datasets. Additional information on the viewer and other ESRI products may be found on the ArcExplorer website. Although extensive review and revisions of the data have been performed by the USGS and the New Hampshire Geological Survey, these data represent interpretations made by professional geologists using the best available data, and are intended to provide general geologic information. Use of these data at scales larger than 1:250,000 will not provide greater accuracy. The data are not intended to replace site-specific or specific-use investigations. The U.S. Geological Survey, New Hampshire Geological Survey, and State of New Hampshire make no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the use, accuracy, or completeness of the data presented herein, or from a map printed from these data; nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The New Hampshire Geological Survey disclaims any legal responsibility or liability for interpretations made from the map, or decisions based thereon. For more information on New Hampshire Geological Survey programs please visit the State's website at http://des.nh.gov/Geology/. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT) provides access to statewide GIS (http://www.granit.unh.edu/). Questions about this CD or about other datasets should be directed to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Data Series↗
USGS2009

Land Treatment Digital Library

A dynamic system to enter, store, retrieve, and analyze Federal land-treatment data. More information and access to data available at: http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/ltdl Across the country, public land managers make hundreds of decisions each year that influence landscapes and ecosystems within the lands they manage. Many of these decisions involve vegetation manipulations known as land treatments. Land treatments include activities such as removal or alteration of plant biomass, seeding burned areas, and herbicide applications. Data on these land treatments are usually stored at local offices, and gathering information across large spatial areas can be difficult. There is a need to centralize and store treatment data for Federal agencies involved in land treatments because these data are useful to land managers for policy and management and to scientists for developing sampling designs and studies. The Land Treatment Digital Library (LTDL) was created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to catalog information about land treatments on Federal lands in the western United States for all interested parties. The flexible framework of the library allows for the storage of a wide variety of data in different formats. The LTDL currently stores previously established land treatments or what often are called legacy data. The project was developed and has been refined based on feedback from partner agencies and stakeholders, with opportunity for the library holdings to expand as new information becomes available. The library contains data in text, tabular, spatial, and image formats. Specific examples include project plans and implementation reports, monitoring data, spatial data files from geographic information systems, digitized paper maps, and digital images of land treatments. The data are entered by USGS employees and are accessible through a searchable web site. The LTDL can be used to respond to information requests, conduct analyses and other forms of information syntheses, produce maps, and generate reports for DOI managers and scientists and other authorized users.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2001

Data Model and Relational Database Design for Highway Runoff Water-Quality Metadata

A National highway and urban runoff waterquality metadatabase was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration as part of the National Highway Runoff Water-Quality Data and Methodology Synthesis (NDAMS). The database was designed to catalog available literature and to document results of the synthesis in a format that would facilitate current and future research on highway and urban runoff. This report documents the design and implementation of the NDAMS relational database, which was designed to provide a catalog of available information and the results of an assessment of the available data. All the citations and the metadata collected during the review process are presented in a stratified metadatabase that contains citations for relevant publications, abstracts (or previa), and reportreview metadata for a sample of selected reports that document results of runoff quality investigations. The database is referred to as a metadatabase because it contains information about available data sets rather than a record of the original data. The database contains the metadata needed to evaluate and characterize how valid, current, complete, comparable, and technically defensible published and available information may be when evaluated for application to the different dataquality objectives as defined by decision makers. This database is a relational database, in that all information is ultimately linked to a given citation in the catalog of available reports. The main database file contains 86 tables consisting of 29 data tables, 11 association tables, and 46 domain tables. The data tables all link to a particular citation, and each data table is focused on one aspect of the information collected in the literature search and the evaluation of available information. This database is implemented in the Microsoft (MS) Access database software because it is widely used within and outside of government and is familiar to many existing and potential customers. The stratified metadatabase design for the NDAMS program is presented in the MS Access file DBDESIGN.mdb and documented with a data dictionary in the NDAMS_DD.mdb file recorded on the CD-ROM. The data dictionary file includes complete documentation of the table names, table descriptions, and information about each of the 419 fields in the database.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2005

Porphyry copper deposits of the world: database, map, and grade and tonnage models

Mineral deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments for two reasons: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types are significantly different, and (2) 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. 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 porphyry copper deposits. This report is an update of an earlier publication about porphyry copper deposits. In this report we have added 84 new porphyry copper deposits and removed 12 deposits. In addition, some errors have been corrected and a number of deposits have had some information, such as grades, tonnages, locations, or ages revised. This publication contains a computer file of information on porphyry copper deposits from around the world. It also presents new grade and tonnage models for porphyry copper deposits and for three subtypes of porphyry copper deposits and a map showing the location of all deposits. 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 data file are considered. Finally, we provide new grade and tonnage models.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

User's Guide to the Water-Analysis Screening Tool (WAST): A Tool for Assessing Available Water Resources in Relation to Aquatic-Resource Uses

A water-analysis screening tool (WAST) was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, to provide an initial screening of areas in the state where potential problems may exist related to the availability of water resources to meet current and future water-use demands. The tool compares water-use information to an initial screening criteria of the 7-day, 10-year low-flow statistic (7Q10) resulting in a screening indicator for influences of net withdrawals (withdrawals minus discharges) on aquatic-resource uses. This report is intended to serve as a guide for using the screening tool. The WAST can display general basin characteristics, water-use information, and screening-indicator information for over 10,000 watersheds in the state. The tool includes 12 primary functions that allow the user to display watershed information, edit water-use and water-supply information, observe effects downstream from edited water-use information, reset edited values to baseline, load new water-use information, save and retrieve scenarios, and save output as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

Open-File Report↗