USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Surveying and Land Information Science”

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 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2006

Geologic map of the Peach Springs 30' x 60' quadrangle, Mohave and Coconino counties, northwestern Arizona

This map is a product of a cooperative project of the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to provide geologic map coverage and regional geologic information for visitor services and resource management of Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Grand Canyon-Parashant-National Monument, and adjacent lands in northwestern Arizona. This map is a synthesis of previous and new geologic mapping that encompasses the Peach Springs 30' x 60' quadrangle, Arizona. The geologic data will support future geologic, biologic, hydrologic, and other science resource studies of this area conducted by the National Park Service, the Hualapai Indian Tribe, the Bureau of Land Management, the State of Arizona, and private organizations. The Colorado River and its tributaries have dissected the southwestern Colorado Plateau into what is now the southwestern part of Grand Canyon. The erosion of Grand Canyon has exposed about 426 m (1,400 ft) of Proterozoic crystalline metamorphic rocks and granite, about 1,450 m (4,760 ft) of Paleozoic strata, and about 300 m (1,000 ft) of Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Outcrops of Proterozoic crystalline rocks are exposed at the bottom of Grand Canyon at Granite Park from Colorado River Mile 207 to 209, at Mile 212, and in the Lower Granite Gorge from Colorado River Mile 216 to 262, and along the Grand Wash Cliffs in the southwest corner of the map area.

Arizona↗
USGS2010

EAARL coastal topography-western Florida, post-Hurricane Charley, 2004: seamless (bare earth and submerged.

Project Description These remotely sensed, geographically referenced elevation measurements of lidar-derived seamless (bare-earth and submerged) topography were produced as a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Coastal and Marine Geology Program (CMGP), St. Petersburg, FL, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Wallops Flight Facility, VA. This project provides highly detailed and accurate datasets of a portion of the western Florida coastline beachface, acquired post-Hurricane Charley on August 17 and 18, 2004. The datasets are made available for use as a management tool to research scientists and natural-resource managers. An innovative airborne lidar instrument originally developed at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, and known as the Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL), was used during data acquisition. The EAARL system is a raster-scanning, waveform-resolving, green-wavelength (532-nanometer) lidar designed to map near-shore bathymetry, topography, and vegetation structure simultaneously. The EAARL sensor suite includes the raster-scanning, water-penetrating full-waveform adaptive lidar, a down-looking red-green-blue (RGB) digital camera, a high-resolution multispectral color infrared (CIR) camera, two precision dual-frequency kinematic carrier-phase GPS receivers, and an integrated miniature digital inertial measurement unit, which provide for sub-meter georeferencing of each laser sample. The nominal EAARL platform is a twin-engine Cessna 310 aircraft, but the instrument may be deployed on a range of light aircraft. A single pilot, a lidar operator, and a data analyst constitute the crew for most survey operations. This sensor has the potential to make significant contributions in measuring sub-aerial and submarine coastal topography within cross-environmental surveys. Elevation measurements were collected over the survey area using the EAARL system, and the resulting data were then processed using the Airborne Lidar Processing System (ALPS), a custom-built processing system developed in a NASA-USGS collaboration. ALPS supports the exploration and processing of lidar data in an interactive or batch mode. Modules for presurvey flight-line definition, flight-path plotting, lidar raster and waveform investigation, and digital camera image playback have been developed. Processing algorithms have been developed to extract the range to the first and last significant return within each waveform. ALPS is used routinely to create maps that represent submerged or sub-aerial topography. Specialized filtering algorithms have been implemented to determine the 'bare earth' under vegetation. For more information about similar projects, please visit the Decision Support for Coastal Science and Management website. Selected References Brock, J.C., Wright, C.W., Sallenger, A.H., Krabill, W.B., and Swift, R.N., 2002, Basis and methods of NASA airborne topographic mapper Lidar surveys for coastal studies: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 18, no. 1, p. 1-13. Crane, Michael, Clayton, Tonya, Raabe, Ellen, Stoker, Jason, Handley, Larry, Bawden, Gerald, Morgan, Karen, and Queija, Vivian, 2004, Report of the U.S. Geological Survey Lidar workshop sponsored by the Land Remote Sensing Program and held in St. Petersburg, FL, November 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1456, 72 p. Nayegandhi, Amar, Brock, J.C., and Wright, C.W., 2009, Small-footprint, waveform-resolving Lidar estimation of submerged and sub-canopy topography in coastal environments: International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 30, no. 4, p. 861-878. Sallenger, A.H., Wright, C.W., and Lillycrop, Jeff, 2005, Coastal impacts of the 2004 hurricanes measured with airborne Lidar; initial results: Shore and Beach, v. 73, nos. 2-3, p. 10-14. Resources Included Readme.txt File

Data Series↗
USGS2008

Technical Manual for the Geospatial Stream Flow Model (GeoSFM)

The monitoring of wide-area hydrologic events requires the use of geospatial and time series data available in near-real time. These data sets must be manipulated into information products that speak to the location and magnitude of the event. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science (USGS EROS) Center have implemented a hydrologic modeling system which consists of an operational data processing system and the Geospatial Stream Flow Model (GeoSFM). The data processing system generates daily forcing evapotranspiration and precipitation data from various remotely sensed and ground-based data sources. To allow for rapid implementation in data scarce environments, widely available terrain, soil, and land cover data sets are used for model setup and initial parameter estimation. GeoSFM performs geospatial preprocessing and postprocessing tasks as well as hydrologic modeling tasks within an ArcView GIS environment. The integration of GIS routines and time series processing routines is achieved seamlessly through the use of dynamically linked libraries (DLLs) embedded within Avenue scripts. GeoSFM is run operationally to identify and map wide-area streamflow anomalies. Daily model results including daily streamflow and soil water maps are disseminated through Internet map servers, flood hazard bulletins and other media.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center-Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report

The Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center is a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) facility focused on providing science and imagery to better understand our Earth. As part of the USGS Geography Discipline, EROS contributes to the Land Remote Sensing (LRS) Program, the Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) Program, and the National Geospatial Program (NGP), as well as our Federal partners and cooperators. The work of the Center is shaped by the Earth sciences, the missions of our stakeholders, and implemented through strong program and project management and application of state-of-the-art information technologies. Fundamentally, EROS contributes to the understanding of a changing Earth through 'research to operations' activities that include developing, implementing, and operating remote sensing based terrestrial monitoring capabilities needed to address interdisciplinary science and applications objectives at all levels-both nationally and internationally. The Center's programs and projects continually strive to meet and/or exceed the changing needs of the USGS, the Department of the Interior, our Nation, and international constituents. The Center's multidisciplinary staff uses their unique expertise in remote sensing science and technologies to conduct basic and applied research, data acquisition, systems engineering, information access and management, and archive preservation to address the Nation's most critical needs. Of particular note is the role of EROS as the primary provider of Landsat data, the longest comprehensive global land Earth observation record ever collected. This report is intended to provide an overview of the scientific and engineering achievements and illustrate the range and scope of the activities and accomplishments at EROS throughout fiscal year (FY) 2009. Additional information concerning the scientific, engineering, and operational achievements can be obtained from the scientific papers and other documents published by EROS staff. We welcome comments and follow-up questions on any aspect of this Annual Report and invite any of our customers or partners to contact us at their convenience. To communicate with us, or for more information about EROS, contact: Communications and Outreach, USGS EROS Center, 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57198, jsnelson@usgs.gov, http://eros.usgs.gov/.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1999

The collection of nine papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. The series presents new and sometimes preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Geologic Studies in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State (fig. 1), serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics: Hazards, Geologic Framework, Environment and Climate, and Resources. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of USGS geologic programs currently active in Alaska. The two Hazards studies discuss volcano-related topics in the seismically active southcentral Alaska region. The first paper revisits the eruptive events of Redoubt Volcano that occurred more than a decade ago and the subsequent development of the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO). This treatise documents the historic impact of this eruption and briefly summarizes the state of our knowledge of the other Cook Inlet, Alaska Peninsula, and Aleutian Island volcanoes. Finally, it discusses the recent role that AVO has had in seismic station installation and hazard assessment at volcanically active sites throughout the world. The second paper discusses the eruptive history of Snowy Mountain in the upper Alaska Peninsula. Because subsets of its 25-30 lava flows erupted as packages in short episodes, calculation of the volcano's lifetime average volumetric eruption rate is problematic. A portion of the cone was hydrothermally weakened and collapsed in the late Holocene producing a 22-km2 debris avalanche. Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future earth science investigations. The first paper compares and contrasts the Insular-Intermontane suture zone (IISZ) of southeast Alaska with the Adria-Europe suture zone (AESZ) of Switzerland and Hungary. The study develops the hypothesis that the zones have distinct differences as well as similarities and neither is a simple lithotectonic terrane boundary. The second paper discusses the relation among volcanic, glacial, and tectonic activity in the Cold Bay and False Pass 1 :250,000-scale quadrangles on the Alaska Peninsula. During Pleistocene time, continental-shelf glaciations and two massive volcanic centers were the dominant controls over landscape development. The third paper gives detailed geologic information for Paleozoic rocks within the Taylor Mountains D-1 quadrangle portion of the Holitna Lowland of southwestern Alaska. Because of the excellent preservation of megafossils, these Silurian and Ordovician strata lend themselves to detailed statigraphic investigations. Further, low thermal alteration indices of this area have made them a potential target of petroleum exploration. The final report in this section discusses the development of a new spectral enhancement approach for interpreting Multispectral Scanner (MSS) and Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite images. This technique enhances the use of remote sensing data in identifying geologic units in areas that have been poorly investigated. This study used this technique to better define the distribution of a JMtu (mafic, ultramafic, and sedimentary) unit and a PzZrqs (pelitic and quartzitic schist) unit. Environment and climate studies are the emphasis of two papers. One presents the first radiocarbon-dated postglacial vegetation history of the Kenai Mountains of southcentral Alaska. This reconstruction is the result of the analysis of pollen assemblages and peat from sediments collected in Tern Lake and presents a minimum age for deglaciation of these interior valleys at 9,31 0±200 yr B .P. Current vegetation, however, developed within the past ca. 2,500 years. A second study discusses the cycling of arsenic and cadmium in sub-arctic boreal forest ecosystems typical of interior Alaska and defines the importance of various natural (geogenic) sources. The transport and uptake into vegetation of these elements from soils developed from loess as well as soils developed from the major rock units is presented. The bioaccumulation of cadmium in willow (Salix sp.) and its potential consequence to the health of browsing animals is discussed. Papers related to resource issues comprise the topic of the final report. This paper presents a brief statistical summary of the geochemistry of rock samples collected in the east-central portion of the Eagle 1 :250,000-scale quadrangle. This study helps define the rock unit source of both resource- and environmental-based chemical elements of interest in the Fortymile mining district. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports covering Alaska earth science topics in USGS publications during 1999 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications during the same period.

Alaska↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and responding to global change

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a nonregulatory Federal science agency with national scope and responsibilities, is uniquely positioned to serve the Nation’s needs in understanding and responding to global change, including changes in climate, water availability, sea level, land use and land cover, ecosystems, and global biogeochemical cycles. Global change is among the most challenging and formidable issues confronting our Nation and society. Scientists agree that global environmental changes during this century will have far-reaching societal implications (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). In the face of these challenges, the Nation can benefit greatly by using natural science information in decisionmaking. Since the passage of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the USGS has made substantial scientific contributions to understanding the interactive living and nonliving components of the Earth system. USGS natural science activities have led to fundamental advances in observing and understanding climate and land-cover change and the effects these changes have on ecosystems, natural-resource availability, and societal sustainability. Most of these major advances were pursued in partnership with other organizations within and outside the Department of the Interior. The inherent value of partnerships with other U.S. Global Change Research Program agencies and natural-resource managers is emphasized in all aspects of the planning and implementation of this Science Strategy for the coming decade. Over the next 10 years, the USGS will make substantial contributions to understanding how Earth systems interact, respond to, and cause global change. The USGS will work with science partners, decisionmakers, and resource managers at local to international levels (including Native American tribes) to improve understanding of past and present change; develop relevant forecasts; and identify those lands, resources, and communities most vulnerable to global change processes. Science will play an essential role in helping communities and land and resource managers understand local to global implications, anticipate effects, prepare for changes, and reduce the risks associated with decisionmaking in a changing environment. USGS partners and stakeholders will benefit from the data, predictive models, and decision-support products and services resulting from the implementation of this strategy. This Science Strategy recognizes core USGS strengths that are applied to key societal problems. It establishes seven goals for USGS global change science and strategic actions that may be implemented in the short term (1–5 years) and the longer term (5–10 years) to improve our understanding of the following areas of inquiry: Rates, causes, and impacts of past global changes; The global carbon cycle; Biogeochemical cycles and their coupled interactions; Land-use and land-cover change rates, causes, and consequences; Droughts, floods, and water availability under changing land-use and climatic conditions; Coastal response to sea-level rise, climatic change, and human development; and Biological responses to global change. In addition to the seven thematic goals, we address the central role of monitoring in accordance with the USGS Science Strategy recommendation that global change research should rely on existing “…decades of observational data and long-term records to interpret consequences of climate variability and change to the Nation’s biological populations, ecosystems, and land and water resources” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, p. 19). We also briefly describe specific needs and opportunities for coordinating USGS global change science among USGS Mission Areas and address the need for a comprehensive and sustained communications strategy.

Circular↗
USGS2005

The National Research Program in the hydrological sciences

The National Research Program (NRP) in the hydrological sciences encompasses a broad spectrum of scientific investigations and focuses on long-term integrated studies related to water resource and environmental problems. The NRP provides an infrastructure within which the USGS can develop new information, theories, and techniques to understand, anticipate, and solve water-resource problems facing managers of Federal lands and the Nation.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2014

Landsat: Sustaining earth observations beyond Landsat 8

The Landsat series of Earth-observing satellites began 41-years ago as a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). For the past 41 years, Landsat satellites and associated U.S. Government ground processing, distribution, and archiving systems have acquired and made available global, moderate-resolution, multispectral measurements of land and coastal regions, providing humankind’s longest record of our planet from space. Landsat information is truly a national asset, providing an important and unique capability that benefits abroad community, including Federal, state, and local governments; globalchange science; academia, and the private sector.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗
USGS1978

The Energy Lands Program of the U.S. Geological Survey, fiscal year 1976

The Energy Lands Program of the U.S. Geological Survey comprises several projects that conduct basic and interpretive earth-science investigations into the environmental aspects of energy-resource recovery, transmission, and conversion. More than half the coal reserves of the United States occur west of the Mississippi River; therefore, the program concentrates mostly on coal-producing regions in the Western interior. Additional studies involve the oil-shale region in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, and coal-related work in Alaska and Appalachia. The work is done both by USGS personnel and under USGS grants and contracts through the Energy Lands Program to universities, State Geological Surveys, and private individuals. Maps and reports characterizing many aspects of environmental earth science are being prepared for areas of Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Types of studies underway include bedrock, surficial, and interpretive geology; engineering geology, geochemistry of surface materials and plants; climatic conditions as they influence rehabilitation potential of mined lands; and feasibility of surface vs. underground mining. The purpose common to all investigations in the Energy Lands Program is to provide timely earth-science information for use by managers, policy-makers, engineers, scientists, planners, and others, in order to contribute to an environmentally sound, orderly, and safe development of the energy resources of the Nation.

Circular↗
USGS2015

Geologic and geophysical maps of the El Casco 7.5′ quadrangle, Riverside County, southern California, with accompanying geologic-map database

Introduction Earth materials and structures in the El Casco quadrangle provide considerable information about the late Cenozoic geologic evolution of southern California’s Inland Empire region (fig. 2). Important structural and stratigraphic elements include (1) modern traces of the right-lateral San Jacinto Fault zone, (2) older traces of the San Jacinto Fault zone, and (3) sedimentary materials and geologic structures that formed during the last eight million years or so and that record interactions within the San Andreas Fault system. These materials, and the structures that deform them, provide a geologic context 3 for investigations of groundwater recharge and subsurface flow (Waring, 1919; Burnham and Dutcher, 1960; Bloyd, 1971; Rewis and others, 2006). This geologic database of the El Casco 7.5′ quadrangle was prepared by the Basins and Landscape Co-Evolution Project (BALANCE), a regional geologic-mapping project sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey. The database was developed as a contribution to the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program’s National Geologic Map Database, and provides a general geologic setting of the El Casco quadrangle. The database and map provide information about earth materials and geologic structures, including faults and folds that have developed in the quadrangle due to complexities in the San Andreas Fault system. Geologic information contained in the El Casco database is general-purpose data applicable to land-related investigations in the earth and biological sciences. The term “general-purpose” means that all geologic-feature classes have minimal information content adequate to characterize their general geologic characteristics and to interpret their general geologic history. However, no single feature class has enough information to definitively characterize its properties and origin. For this reason the database cannot be used for site-specific geologic evaluations, although it can be used to plan and guide investigations at the site-specific level.

California↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive

The National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive (NSLRSDA) resides at the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Through the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, the U.S. Congress directed the Department of the Interior (DOI) to establish a permanent Government archive containing satellite remote sensing data of the Earth's land surface and to make this data easily accessible and readily available. This unique DOI/USGS archive provides a comprehensive, permanent, and impartial observational record of the planet's land surface obtained throughout more than five decades of satellite remote sensing. Satellite-derived data and information products are primary sources used to detect and understand changes such as deforestation, desertification, agricultural crop vigor, water quality, invasive plant species, and certain natural hazards such as flood extent and wildfire scars.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2016

Users and uses of Landsat 8 satellite imagery—2014 survey results

Executive Summary In 2013, Landsat 8 began adding high quality, global, moderate-resolution imagery to the more than 40-year archive of Landsat imagery. To assess the potential effects of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on users and their work, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Land Remote Sensing Program (LRS) initiated a survey of Landsat users. The objectives of the survey were to 1. Characterize various Landsat user groups, such as United States (U.S.) and international users and Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users; 2. Identify any differences among user groups in uses and preferences; 3. Measure the importance of and satisfaction with Landsat 8 attributes; 4. Assess the importance to users of the frequency of usable imagery; and 5. Determine any challenges in using Landsat 8. The online survey was sent to 51,617 Landsat users registered with USGS in May 2014. Almost 13,000 people responded to the survey for a response rate of 25 percent (n = 12,966). Current Landsat users (users who had used Landsat in their work in the year prior to the survey) composed 89 percent of the sample (n = 11,549) and past Landsat users composed 11 percent (n = 1,417). The results reported here apply to current Landsat users registered with the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Users from 161 countries responded to the survey. Of those, 19 percent were citizens or permanent residents of the United States and 81 percent resided in other countries. More than 70 percent of current users had used Landsat 8 in the year prior to the survey. The majority of Landsat 8 users (65 percent) were established users who used Landsat imagery regularly both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available. The average current Landsat user was male, 36 years old, and highly educated, with 9 years of experience using satellite imagery or geographic information system (GIS) software. Landsat 8 users had, on average, two more years of experience than non-Landsat 8 users. Users were employed predominantly by academic institutions (65 percent), followed by private businesses (13 percent), Federal governments (10 percent), State and local governments (6 percent), and nonprofit organizations (6 percent). Of the Landsat imagery obtained in the past year by current users, on average 31 percent came from a Landsat 8 sensor. An equivalent amount came from the Landsat 7 ETM+ sensor (33 percent); slightly less came from Landsats 4 and 5 TM sensors (27 percent). Much less came from Landsats 1 through 5 MSS sensors (5 percent). Overall, more than a third of users’ work used Landsat imagery (38 percent). Of this work, on average, 37 percent of the work was operational. Landsat 8 users considered a greater proportion of their work operational than non-Landsat 8 users (39 percent compared with 29 percent). Environmental sciences and management were the most commonly selected primary applications (selected by 42 percent of users). Land use/land cover (23 percent) was the second most commonly selected primary application, followed by education (12 percent), agriculture (9 percent), and planning and development (6 percent). Landsat 8 users were asked to rank the importance of certain attributes in determining whether to use Landsat 8 imagery in their work. The archive was ranked most important, followed by cost, spatial resolution, extent of coverage, data quality, and frequency of revisit. Users were asked how satisfied they were with these same attributes as they currently apply to Landsat 8 imagery. On average, users were most satisfied with lack of cost, extent of coverage, data quality, and the archive, but they were satisfied with all attributes. Users were asked how often they needed Landsat imagery to meet various requirements for their primary application. The survey question specifically asked how often users needed usable imagery, which differs from how often they would like the Landsat satellites to acquire an image. Users were asked to identify their needed frequency of usable imagery for the following levels: 1. Threshold level—the minimum frequency of usable imagery needed to be of any value to their primary application. 2. Breakthrough level—the frequency of usable imagery that would result in a significant improvement for their primary application of the imagery. 3. Target level—the frequency of usable imagery that would only provide a limited additional increase in the expected performance for their primary application. To meet the threshold level, three-quarters of users needed usable imagery every 17 days or less frequently. At the breakthrough level, two-thirds of users (64 percent) needed a usable image every 5–16 days. The current constellation of two satellites (Landsat 7 and 8) is capable of meeting the threshold and breakthrough needs of most users at least some of the time, but a single satellite would be highly unlikely to do so. Two-fifths of users (40 percent) felt that usable imagery provided every 4 days or more frequently would meet their target level which the current Landsat constellation cannot provide. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than non-Landsat 8 users to need usable imagery more frequently to meet their target levels. Additionally, U.S. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than other Landsat users to need usable imagery more frequently in order meet both their breakthrough and target levels. To explore the effect of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on Landsat imagery use in general, established users (those who had consistently used Landsat imagery both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available) using Landsat 8 imagery were asked about changes in the amount of Landsat imagery they used. The majority of established users using Landsat 8 imagery (60 percent) reported an average increase of 51 percent in the number of scenes obtained after Landsat 8 imagery became available. Landsat 8 users were asked if they had encountered challenges in using Landsat 8 whereas non-Landsat 8 users were asked if such challenges had played a role in why they were not using Landsat 8 imagery. Although many users did not encounter challenges when using or trying to use Landsat 8 data, slightly less than 30 percent did encounter issues with processing the data to a usable point. The most common issue reported was not being able to create or have access to a surface reflectance corrected product. Other challenges were related to the file sizes of images being too large to download, store, or analyze. There were no statistically significant differences between Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users in terms of challenges encountered when using or trying to use the imagery, which indicates that users were not unduly discouraged by the challenges they may have encountered. When asked about potential consequences of not using Landsat 8, more than half of the non-Landsat 8 users did not report detrimental effects on their work from not using the imagery. Of those who did report detrimental effects, decreased quality of work, decreased scope of work, and increased time spent on work were the most common.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

The U.S. Geological Survey Peak-Flow File Data Verification Project, 2008–16

Annual peak streamflow (peak flow) at a streamgage is defined as the maximum instantaneous flow in a water year. A water year begins on October 1 and continues through September 30 of the following year; for example, water year 2015 extends from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The accuracy, characterization, and completeness of the peak streamflow data are critical in determining flood-frequency estimates that are used daily to design water and transportation infrastructure, delineate flood-plain boundaries, and regulate development and utilization of lands throughout the United States and are essential to understanding the implications of climate and land-use change on flooding and high-flow conditions. As of November 14, 2016, peak-flow data existed for 27,240 unique streamgages in the United States and its territories. The data, collectively referred to as the “peak-flow file,” are available as part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) public web interface, the National Water Information System, at https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/peak . Although the data have been routinely subjected to periodic review by the USGS Office of Surface Water and screening at the USGS Water Science Center level, these data were not reviewed in a national, systematic manner until 2008 when automated scripts were developed and applied to detect potential errors in peak-flow values and their associated dates, gage heights, and peak-flow qualification codes, as well as qualification codes associated with the gage heights. USGS scientists and hydrographers studied the resulting output, accessed basic records and field notes, and corrected observed errors or, more commonly, confirmed existing data as correct. This report summarizes the changes in peak-flow file data at a national level, illustrates their nature and causation, and identifies the streamgages affected by these changes. Specifically, the peak-flow data were compared for streamgages with peak flow measured as of November 19, 2008 (before the automated scripts were widely applied) and on November 14, 2016 (after several rounds of corrections). There were 659,332 peak-flow values in the 2008 dataset and 731,965 peak-flow values in the 2016 dataset. When compared to the 2016 dataset, 5,179 (0.79 percent) peak-flow values had changed; 36,506 (5.54 percent) of the peak-flow qualification codes had changed; 1,938 (0.29 percent) peak-flow dates had changed; 18,599 (2.82 percent) of the peak-flow gage heights had changed; and 20,683 (3.14 percent) of the gage-height qualification codes had changed—most as a direct result of the peak-flow file data verification effort led by USGS personnel. The various types of changes are summarized and mapped in this report. In addition to this report, a corresponding USGS data release is provided to identify changes in peak flows at individual streamgages. The data release and the procedures to access the data release are described in this report.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1986

Prospects for mineral resource assessments on public lands: Proceedings of the Leesburg workshop

Modern geological surveys pursue a wide spectrum of research activities in the earth sciences. From the beginning, however, one of the core tasks of any national geological survey has been the assessment and evaluation of its nation's mineral and fuel resources. The methods by which such assessments are carried out have become more sophisticated over time, in keeping with advancing geoscientific knowledge and the development and application of new concepts and technologies. However, the basic objectives of such work have changed little, and the fundamental goal remains the construction of the best possible base of information on the nature, distribution and economic potential of the resources within a nation's landmass and its offshore jurisdictions.

Circular↗
USGS1999

USGS Science for Restoration of South Florida: The South Florida Ecosystem Program

As land and resource managers see the value of their resources diminish, and the public watches the environments they knew as children become degraded, there are increasing calls to restore what has been lost, or to build productive ecosystems that will be healthy and sustainable under the conditions of human use. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Placed-Based Studies Program was established to provide sound science for resource managers in critical ecosystems such as South Florida (fig. 1). The program, which began in south Florida in 1995, provides relevant information, high-quality data, and models to support decisions for ecosystem restoration and management. The program applies multi- and interdisciplinary science to address regional and subregional environmental resources issues.

Florida↗
USGS2014

Land processes distributed active archive center product lifecycle plan

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Science Data System Program worked together to establish, develop, and operate the Land Processes (LP) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) to provide stewardship for NASA’s land processes science data. These data are critical science assets that serve the land processes science community with potential value beyond any immediate research use, and therefore need to be accounted for and properly managed throughout their lifecycle. A fundamental LP DAAC objective is to enable permanent preservation of these data and information products. The LP DAAC accomplishes this by bridging data producers and permanent archival resources while providing intermediate archive services for data and information products.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

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 policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making 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 well-being 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 decision-makers 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 USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency 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 DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. 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 and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • 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 decision-making 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 decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific 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 both 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 over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗