USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Gregory L. Gunther

Publications and source records attributed to Gregory L. Gunther.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

U.S. Geological Survey data strategy 2023–33

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has long recognized the strategic importance and value of well-managed data assets as an integral component of scientific integrity and foundational to the advancement of scientific research, decision making, and public safety. The USGS investment in the science lifecycle, including collection of unbiased data assets, interpretation, peer review, interpretive publications, and data release, ultimately contributes to the transparency and availability of science. Foundational Government directives and laws, such as the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–435, 132 Stat. 5529) as well as Executive Order 13642, “Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information,” provide a framework for addressing strategic data management. The USGS Data Strategy builds on that framework by outlining high-level goals and objectives that serve as a long-term, decadal guide toward achieving a broad, data-focused vision. Benefits of the USGS Data Strategy are many. The USGS will contribute to open science by increasing efficiencies in the consistent management of valuable data assets; driving innovation that results in modernized capabilities to ensure data are analysis ready; increasing data skills across the Bureau to enhance workforce data literacy; broadening capacity to understand and address needs of stakeholders; and measuring progress in producing findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data products. The major goals and objectives of the USGS Data Strategy promote maximizing the utility of USGS data based on stakeholder needs, promoting data innovation, coordinating common data practices, modernizing our USGS enterprise data architecture, and enhancing our data-centric culture. The goals and objectives in the strategy align with other Bureau strategic plans, guidance, and directives from the Department of the Interior and the Federal Government. This strategy is a key component to strengthen the Bureau’s data ecosystem to ensure a relevant, long-term capacity that supports internal needs and achieves its scientific mission in the most efficient and effective manner.

Circular

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

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

Open-File Report

Digital data in support of studies and assessments of coal and petroleum resources in the Appalachian basin

The Appalachian basin is a mature basin containing abundant oil, gas, and coal resources. Its fossil-fuel-bearing strata range in age from Cambrian to Permian and extend over the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. The basin has provided abundant fossil fuels to support the Nation’s economic growth for at least 150 years and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessments suggest that substantial untapped resources remain. A merger of new and old geologic data and ideas is required to locate and extract those remaining resources. This chapter brings together abundant existing datasets in a common and integrated spatial format to advance our understanding of the distribution, geologic framework, burial history, and geochemical character of the basin’s oil, gas, and coal resources. These datasets support the information and findings in chapters B through G of this volume, which include (1) geologic cross sections, seismic profiles, and burial history models that document the depositional and structural framework of the basin; (2) assessments of Carboniferous coal-bed gas and Devonian shale gas; (3) studies about the distribution of oil, gas, and coal fields and the geochemistry of natural gas and oil; and (4) a history of fossil-fuel production in the basin. The data that supported these studies were refined and made more accessible using geographic information system (GIS) tools. The following types of data are included: (1) the bedrock geology of States included within the boundary of the Appalachian basin, (2) the locations of oil and gas wells and fields, (3) data produced for the National Oil and Gas Assessment, and (4) the stratigraphy, geochemistry, and production of coal. Data layers are available in shapefile and Zipped Keyhole Markup Language (KMZ) formats, which can be viewed using ArcGIS, Google Earth, or any software package that supports these data formats. Metadata for these datasets are available in HTML and XML formats. Metadata files contain information about the sources of data used to create the dataset, the creation process steps, the data quality, the geographic coordinate system and horizontal datum used for the dataset, the values of attributes used in the dataset table, information about the publication and the publishing organization, and other information that may be useful to the reader. All links in the metadata were valid at the time of compilation. Some of these links may no longer be valid. No attempt has been made to determine the new online location (if one exists) for the data.

Appalachian basin

Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

The growth in the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has highlighted the need for regional and national digital geologic maps attributed with age and lithology information. Such maps can be conveniently used to generate derivative maps for purposes including mineral-resource assessment, metallogenic studies, tectonic studies, and environmental research. This Open-File Report is a preliminary version of part of a series of integrated state geologic map databases that cover the entire United States. The only national-scale digital geologic maps that portray most or all of the United States for the conterminous U.S. are the digital version of the King and Beikman (1974a, b) map at a scale of 1:2,500,000, as digitized by Schruben and others (1994) and the generalized digital version (Reed and Bush, 2004) of the Geologic Map of North America (Reed and others, 2005a, b) compiled at a scale of 1:5,000,000. The present series of maps is intended to provide the next step in increased detail. State geologic maps that range in scale from 1:100,000 to 1:1,000,000 are available for most of the country, and digital versions of these state maps are the basis for this product. In a few cases, new digital compilations were prepared (e.g. Ohio, South Carloina, South Dakota) or existing paper maps were digitized (e.g. Kentucky, Texas). Also as part of this series, new regional maps for Alaska and Hawaii are being compiled and ultimately new state maps will be produced. The digital geologic maps are presented in standardized formats as ARC/INFO export (.e00) files and as ArcView shape (.shp) files. Accompanying these spatial databases are a set of five supplemental attribute tables that relate the map units to detailed lithologic and age information. The maps for the CONUS have been fitted to a common set of state boundaries based on the 1:100,000 topographic map series of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). When the individual state maps are merged, the combined attribute tables can be used directly with the merged maps to make derivative maps. No attempt has been made to reconcile differences in mapped geology across state lines.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin

Preliminary report on coal resources of the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone, Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana

The National Coal Resource Assessment (NCRA) project by the U.S. Geological Survey is designed to assess US coal with the greatest potential for development in the next 20 to 30 years. Coal in the Wyodak-Anderson (WA) coal zone in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana is plentiful, clean, and compliant with EPA emissions standards. This coal is considered to be very desirable for development for use in electric power generation. The purpose of this NCRA study was to compile all available data relating to the Wyodak- Anderson coal, correlate the beds that make up the WA coal zone, create digital files pertaining to the study area and the WA coal, and produce a variety of reports on various aspects of the assessed coal unit. This report contains preliminary calculations of coal resources for the WA coal zone and is one of many products of the NCRA study. Coal resource calculations in this report were produced using both public and confidential data from many sources. The data was manipulated using a variety of commercially available software programs and several custom programs. A general description of the steps involved in producing the resource calculations is described in this report.

North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming

Preliminary report on methodology for calculating coal resources of the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone, Powder River basin, Wyoming and Montana

The National Coal Resource Assessment of the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone includes reports on the geology, stratigraphy, quality, and quantity of coal. The calculation of resources is only one aspect of the assessment. Without thorough documentation of the coal resource study and the methods used, the results of our study could be misinterpreted. The task of calculating coal resources included many steps, the use of several commercial software programs, and the incorporation of custom programs. The methods used for calculating coal resources for the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone vary slightly from the methods used in other study areas, and by other workers in the National Coal Resource Assessment. The Wyodak-Anderson coal zone includes up to 10 coal beds in any given location. The net coal thickness of the zone at each data point location was calculated by summing the thickness of all of the coal beds that were greater than 2.5 ft thick. The amount of interburden is not addressed or reported in this coal resource assessment. The amount of overburden reported is the amount of rock above the stratigraphically highest coal bed in the zone. The resource numbers reported do not include coal within mine or lease areas, in areas containing mapped Wyodak-Anderson clinker, or in areas where the coal is extrapolated to be less than 2.5 ft thick. The resources of the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone are reported in Ellis and others (1998). A general description of how the resources were calculated is included in that report. The purpose of this report is to document in more detail some of the parameters and methods used, define our spatial data, compare resources calculated using different grid options and calculation methods, and explain the application of confidence limits to the resource calculation.

Open-File Report