SEARCH · USGS 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.
The Geographic Information Office (GIO) benefits the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by providing access to and delivery of USGS information and services, safety and security of USGS data and information, support for USGS science, and coordination of partnerships through Federal interagency data committees.
This document is a result of Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Version 0 activities of the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center at the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Data Center. A relatively small part of the Version 0 funding provided by NASA is used to address topographic data issues related to EOS. These issues include identifying and improving access to existing sources of topographic data, data generation, facilitating the use of topographic data in global change research by demonstrating derivative products, and inventorying the specific topographic data requirements of EOS investigators. There is a clear need for global topographic data in EOSDIS. Only 10 percent of the global land surface is covered by high-resolution data that are available to the global change science community. Alternative sources for new data exist or have been proposed; however, none of them alone can fulfill the data requirements by the launch of the first EOS platform in 4 years. There is no operational provider of all the source data that are required. Even if appropriate global source data existed, a concerted production effort would be necessary to ensure the existence of the requisite topographic data before EOS launch. Additionally, no funding from NASA or any other agency has been appropriated for a new mapping mission or for other means of data acquisition. This effort to document requirements is an initial step toward understanding the severity of the data shortage. It is well beyond the scope of Version 0 funding and capabilities to provide the required data in the proper timeframe. The shortage of data and the lack of a plan for providing the necessary topographic data through EOSDIS in time for launch are issues that must be addressed by the EOS program.
This dataset, termed "GAGES II", an acronym for Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow, version II, provides geospatial data and classifications for 9,322 stream gages maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It is an update to the original GAGES, which was published as a Data Paper on the journal Ecology's website (Falcone and others, 2010b) in 2010. The GAGES II dataset consists of gages which have had either 20+ complete years (not necessarily continuous) of discharge record since 1950, or are currently active, as of water year 2009, and whose watersheds lie within the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Reference gages were identified based on indicators that they were the least-disturbed watersheds within the framework of broad regions, based on 12 major ecoregions across the United States. Of the 9,322 total sites, 2,057 are classified as reference, and 7,265 as non-reference. Of the 2,057 reference sites, 1,633 have (through 2009) 20+ years of record since 1950. Some sites have very long flow records: a number of gages have been in continuous service since 1900 (at least), and have 110 years of complete record (1900-2009) to date. The geospatial data include several hundred watershed characteristics compiled from national data sources, including environmental features (e.g. climate – including historical precipitation, geology, soils, topography) and anthropogenic influences (e.g. land use, road density, presence of dams, canals, or power plants). The dataset also includes comments from local USGS Water Science Centers, based on Annual Data Reports, pertinent to hydrologic modifications and influences. The data posted also include watershed boundaries in GIS format. This overall dataset is different in nature to the USGS Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN; Slack and Landwehr 1992), whose data evaluation ended with water year 1988. The HCDN identifies stream gages which at some point in their history had periods which represented natural flow, and the years in which those natural flows occurred were identified (i.e. not all HCDN sites were in reference condition even in 1988, for example, 02353500). The HCDN remains a valuable indication of historic natural streamflow data. However, the goal of this dataset was to identify watersheds which currently have near-natural flow conditions, and the 2,057 reference sites identified here were derived independently of the HCDN. A subset, however, noted in the BasinID worksheet as “HCDN-2009”, has been identified as an updated list of 743 sites for potential hydro-climatic study. The HCDN-2009 sites fulfill all of the following criteria: (a) have 20 years of complete and continuous flow record in the last 20 years (water years 1990-2009), and were thus also currently active as of 2009, (b) are identified as being in current reference condition according to the GAGES-II classification, (c) have less than 5 percent imperviousness as measured from the NLCD 2006, and (d) were not eliminated by a review from participating state Water Science Center evaluators. The data posted here consist of the following items:- This point shapefile, with summary data for the 9,322 gages.- A zip file containing basin characteristics, variable definitions, and a more detailed report.- A zip file containing shapefiles of basin boundaries, organized by classification and aggregated ecoregion.- A zip file containing mainstem stream lines (Arc line coverages) for each gage.
As the Nation’s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping information agency, the U.S. Geological Survey is relied on to collect high-quality data, and produce factual and impartial interpretive reports. This quality-assurance and data-management plan provides guidance for water-quality activities conducted by the Kansas Water Science Center. Policies and procedures are documented for activities related to planning, collecting, storing, documenting, tracking, verifying, approving, archiving, and disseminating water-quality data. The policies and procedures described in this plan complement quality-assurance plans for continuous water-quality monitoring, surface-water, and groundwater activities in Kansas.
The recent boom in the volume of digital data returned by international planetary science missions continues to both delight and confound users of those data. In just the past decade, the Planetary Data System (PDS), NASA’s official archive of scientific results from U.S. planetary missions, has seen a nearly 50-fold increase in the amount of data and now serves nearly half a petabyte. In only a handful of years, this volume is expected to approach 1 petabyte (1,000 terabytes or 1 quadrillion bytes). Although data providers, archivists, users, and developers have done a creditable job of providing search functions, download capabilities, and analysis and visualization tools, the new wealth of data necessitates more frequent and extensive discussion among users and developers about their current capabilities and their needs for improved and new tools. A workshop to address these and other topics, “Planetary Data: A Workshop for Users and Planetary Software Developers,” was held June 25–29, 2012, at Northern Arizona University (NAU) in Flagstaff, Arizona. A goal of the workshop was to present a summary of currently available tools, along with hands-on training and how-to guides, for acquiring, processing and working with a variety of digital planetary data. The meeting emphasized presentations by data users and mission providers during days 1 and 2, and developers had the floor on days 4 and 5 using an “unconference” format for day 5. Day 3 featured keynote talks by Laurence Soderblom (U.S. Geological Survey, USGS) and Dan Crichton (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL) followed by a panel discussion, and then research and technical discussions about tools and capabilities under recent or current development. Software and tool demonstrations were held in break-out sessions in parallel with the oral session. Nearly 150 data users and developers from across the globe attended, and 22 National Aeronautics and space Administration (NASA) and non-NASA data providers and missions were represented. Presentations (some in video format) and tutorials are posted on the meeting site ( http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/groups/Planetary-Data-Workshop ).
Federal mandates and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, also known as the Bureau) Fundamental Science Practices (FSP) policies require that publicly funded scientific data, publications, and derivative works be openly accessible to researchers and the public. Open access helps to leverage the public investment by making the acquired data and published information products—collectively referred to as “data assets”—easier to locate, reproduce, and reuse. Open access also provides transparency to the processes used to acquire and analyze the data, thereby helping to ensure the scientific integrity of USGS data and products. The data assets produced by USGS programs, science centers, and projects are preserved digitally in various USGS and non-USGS repositories. To capitalize on the investment expended for data collection, analysis, and interpretation, these systems must remain useful and meaningful. For USGS repositories, the Bureau FSP Advisory Committee has implemented an evaluation process to ensure that the systems being used to preserve these data assets are trustworthy, reliable, and secure and thus provide for data longevity, integrity, and security. A system that is found to meet the reliability and suitability requirements is certified as a USGS Trusted Digital Repository.
The Southeastern United States spans a broad range of physiographic settings and maintains exceptionally high levels of faunal diversity. Unfortunately, many of these ecosystems are increasingly under threat due to rapid human development, and management agencies are increasingly aware of the potential effects that climate change will have on these ecosystems. Natural resource managers and conservation planners can be effective at preserving ecosystems in the face of these stressors only if they can adapt current conservation efforts to increase the overall resilience of the system. Climate change, in particular, challenges many of the basic assumptions used by conservation planners and managers. Previous conservation planning efforts identified and prioritized areas for conservation based on the current environmental conditions, such as habitat quality, and assumed that conditions in conservation lands would be largely controlled by management actions (including no action). Climate change, however, will likely alter important system drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain recent historic conditions in conservation lands into the future. Climate change will also influence the future conservation potential of non-conservation lands, further complicating conservation planning. Therefore, there is a need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change on future environmental conditions. Congress recognized this important issue and authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC; http://nccw.usgs.gov/) in the Fiscal Year 2008. The NCCWSC will produce science that will help resource management agencies anticipate and adapt to climate change impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. With the release of Secretarial Order 3289 on September 14, 2009, the mandate of the NCCWSC was expanded to address climate change-related impacts on all Department of the Interior (DOI) resources. The NCCWSC will establish a network of eight DOI Regional Climate Science Centers (RCSCs) that will work with a variety of partners to provide natural resource managers with tools and information that will help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The forecasting products produced by the RCSCs will aid fish, wildlife, and land managers in designing suitable adaptive management approaches for their programs. The DOI also is developing Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) as science and conservation action partnerships at subregional scales. The USGS is working with the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop science collaboration between the future Southeast RCSC and future LCCs. The NCCWSC Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP) will begin to develop regional downscaled climate models, land cover change models, regional ecological models, regional watershed models, and other science tools. Models and data produced by SERAP will be used in a collaborative process between the USGS, the FWS (LCCs), State and federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and academia to produce science at appropriate scales to answer resource management questions. The SERAP will produce an assessment of climate change, and impacts on land cover, ecosystems, and priority species in the region. The predictive tools developed by the SERAP project team will allow end users to better understand potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise on terrestrial and aquatic populations in the Southeastern United States. The SERAP capitalizes on the integration of five existing projects: (1) the Multi-State Conservation Grants Program project "Designing Sustainable Landscapes," (2) the USGS multidisciplinary Science Thrust project "Water Availability for Ecological Needs," (3) the USGS Southeast Pilot Project "Climate Change in the Southeastern U.S. and its Impacts on Bird Distributions and Habitats," (4) a sea-level rise impacts study envisioned jointly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and (5) two USGS sea-level rise impact assessment projects that address inundation hazards and provide probabilistic forecasts of coastal geomorphic change. The SERAP will expand on these existing projects and include the following tasks, which were initiated in summer 2009: * Regionally downscaled probabilistic climate-change projections * Integrated coastal assessment * Integrated terrestrial assessment * Multi-resolution assessment of potential climate change effects on biological resources: aquatic and hydrologic dynamics * Optimal conservation strategies to cope with climate change The SERAP seeks to formally integrate these tasks to aid conservation planning and design so that ecosystem management decisions can be optimized for providing desirable outcomes across a range of species and environments. The following chapters detail SERAP's efforts in providing a suite of regional climate, watershed, and landscape-change analyses and develop the interdisciplinary framework required for the biological planning phases of adaptive management and strategic conservation. The planning phase will include the identification of conservation alternatives, development of predictive models and decision support tools, and development of a template to address similar challenges and goals in other regions. The project teams will explore and develop ways to link the various ecological models arising from each component. The SERAP project team also will work closely with members of the LCCs and other partnerships throughout the life of the project to ensure that the objectives of the project meet resources mangers needs in the Southeast.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have provided a model-based assessment of transport and deposition of residual Deepwater Horizon oil along the shoreline within the northern Gulf of Mexico in the form of mixtures of sand and weathered oil, known as surface residual balls (SRBs). The results of this USGS research, in combination with results from other components of the overall study, will inform operational decisionmaking. The results will provide guidance for response activities and data collection needs during future oil spills. In May 2012 the U.S. Coast Guard, acting as the Deepwater Horizon Federal on-scene coordinator, chartered an operational science advisory team to provide a science-based review of data collected and to conduct additional directed studies and sampling. The goal was to characterize typical shoreline profiles and morphology in the northern Gulf of Mexico to identify likely sources of residual oil and to evaluate mechanisms whereby reoiling phenomena may be occurring (for example, burial and exhumation and alongshore transport). A steering committee cochaired by British Petroleum Corporation (BP) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is overseeing the project and includes State on-scene coordinators from four States (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi), trustees of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard. This report presents the results of hydrodynamic and sediment transport models and developed techniques for analyzing potential SRB movement and burial and exhumation along the coastline of Alabama and Florida. Results from these modeling efforts are being used to explain the complexity of reoiling in the nearshore environment and to broaden consideration of the different scenarios and difficulties that are being faced in identifying and removing residual oil. For instance, modeling results suggest that larger SRBs are not, under the most commonly observed low-energy wave conditions, likely to move very far alongshore. This finding suggests that SRBs from one source location may not (outside of storm conditions) be redistributed to other up or down coast locations. This information can guide operational response decisions. In addition, because SRBs are less mobile compared with sand, they are likely to become buried and unburied under normal sand transport processes thereby lengthening the time SRBs may take to move onshore. The rate of onshore movement was not specifically addressed by this study, yet the results resolve the cross-shore domain and cross-shore variations in alongshore transport that are relevant to achieving the primary objectives. Furthermore, during infrequent events (for example, winter storms and severe meteorological events such as Hurricane Isaac of August 2012), energy is shown to be sufficient to move a greater range of SRB sizes and potentially expose and break up submerged oil mats. When SRBs do move alongshore, the models indicate that there are regions that are more conducive to accumulation of SRB material than others. Accumulation can occur where there are reversals and decelerations in alongshore currents and where forces created by shear stress drops below critical thresholds to maintain or initiate SRB movement. In addition, flow and SRB mobility patterns around inlets indicate patterns in hydrodynamic forces that influence redistribution of SRBs and the surface oil that mixed with sediment to form oil mats in the first place.
Ecological science has contributed greatly to our understanding of the natural world and the impact of humans on that world. Now, we need to refocus the discipline towards research that ensures a future in which natural systems and the humans they include coexist on a more sustainable planet. Acknowledging that managed ecosystems and intensive exploitation of resources define our future, ecologists must play a greatly expanded role in communicating their research and influencing policy and decisions that affect the environment. To accomplish this, they will have to forge partnerships at scales and in forms they have not traditionally used. These alliances must act within three visionary areas: enhancing the extent to which decisions are ecologically informed; advancing innovative ecological research directed at the sustainability of the planet; and stimulating cultural changes within the science itself, thereby building a forward-looking and international ecology. We recommend: (1) a research initiative to enhance research project development, facilitate large-scale experiments and data collection, and link science to solutions; (2) procedures that will improve interactions among researchers, managers, and decision makers; and (3) efforts to build public understanding of the links between ecosystem services and humans.
Water-quality data from long-term (24 years), fixed- station monitoring at the Cape Fear River at Lock 1 near Kelly, N.C., and various measures of basin development are correlated. Subbasin population, number of acres of cropland in the subbasin, number of people employed in manufacturing, and tons of fertilizer applied in the basin are considered as measures of basinwide development activity. Linear correlations show statistically significant posi- tive relations between both population and manufacturing activity and most of the dissolved constituents considered. Negative correlations were found between the acres of harvested cropland and most of the water-quality measures. The amount of fertilizer sold in the subbasin was not statistically related to the water-quality measures considered in this report. The statistical analysis was limited to several commonly used measures of water quality including specific conductance, pH, dissolved solids, several major dissolved ions, and a few nutrients. The major dissolved ions included in the analysis were calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, chloride, sulfate, silica, bicarbonate, and fluoride. The nutrients included were dissolved nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen, dissolved ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, dissolved phosphates, and total phosphorus. For the chemicals evaluated, manufacturing and population sources are more closely associated with water quality in the Cape Fear River at Lock 1 than are agricultural variables.
While there have been far fewer missions to the outer Solar System than to the inner Solar System, spacecraft destined for the giant planets have conducted a wide range of fundamental investigations, returning data that continues to reshape our understanding of these complex systems, sometimes decades after the data were acquired. These data are preserved and accessible from national and international planetary science archives. For all NASA planetary missions and instruments the data are available from the science discipline nodes of the NASA Planetary Data System (PDS). Looking ahead, the PDS will be the primary repository for giant planets data from several upcoming missions and derived datasets, as well as supporting research conducted to aid in the interpretation of the remotely sensed giant planets data already archived in the PDS.
While research projects have been conducted to examine the impacts and effectiveness of China's ecological restoration programs, few of them represent integrated, systematic efforts. The objective of this chapter is thus to articulate and outline a methodology for an integrative assessment, which, we believe, should embrace both the environmental and socioeconomic changes and engage investigations at multiple scales. Further, these investigations should be pursued through interdisciplinary collaboration with expertise from ecology, economics, hydrology, and geospatial, climate, and land change sciences. We argue that the deployment of geospatial capability, the use of longitudinal data, and the connection between science and policy should be the hallmarks of an integrative assessment. We also describe our general approach and specific models to quantify the environmental and socioeconomic impacts induced by implementing the restoration programs, and address the issue of how to overcome the challenges in generating the data needed for executing various empirical tasks. We hope that the adoption and application of this methodology will make a valuable contribution to a more robust and timely assessment as well as implementation of the ecological restoration programs in and outside of China.
Seismic hazard assessments that are based on a variety of data and the best available science, coupled with rapid synthesis of real-time information from continuous monitoring networks to guide post-earthquake response, form a solid foundation for effective earthquake loss reduction. With this in mind, the Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) engages in a variety of undertakings, both established and emergent, in order to provide high quality products that enable stakeholders to take action in advance of and in response to earthquakes. Examples include the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), development of tools for improved situational awareness such as earthquake early warning (EEW) and operational earthquake forecasting (OEF), research about induced seismicity, and new efforts to advance comprehensive subduction zone science and monitoring. Geodetic observations provide unique and complementary information directly relevant to advancing many aspects of these efforts (fig. 1). EHP scientists have long leveraged geodetic data for a range of influential studies, and they continue to develop innovative observation and analysis methods that push the boundaries of the field of geodesy as applied to natural hazards research. Given the ongoing, rapid improvement in availability, variety, and precision of geodetic measurements, considering ways to fully utilize this observational resource for earthquake loss reduction is timely and essential. This report presents strategies, and the underlying scientific rationale, by which the EHP could achieve the following outcomes: The EHP is an authoritative source for the interpretation of geodetic data and its use for earthquake loss reduction throughout the United States and its territories. The USGS consistently provides timely, high quality geodetic data to stakeholders. Significant earthquakes are better characterized by incorporating geodetic data into USGS event response products and by expanded use of geodetic imaging data to assess fault rupture and source parameters. Uncertainties in the NSHM, and in regional earthquake models, are reduced by fully incorporating geodetic data into earthquake probability calculations. Geodetic networks and data are integrated into the operations and earthquake information products of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Earthquake early warnings are improved by more rapidly assessing ground displacement and the dynamic faulting process for the largest earthquakes using real-time geodetic data. Methodology for probabilistic earthquake forecasting is refined by including geodetic data when calculating evolving moment release during aftershock sequences and by better understanding the implications of transient deformation for earthquake likelihood. A geodesy program that encompasses a balanced mix of activities to sustain missioncritical capabilities, grows new competencies through the continuum of fundamental to applied research, and ensures sufficient resources for these endeavors provides a foundation by which the EHP can be a leader in the application of geodesy to earthquake science. With this in mind the following objectives provide a framework to guide EHP efforts: Fully utilize geodetic information to improve key products, such as the NSHM and EEW, and to address new ventures like the USGS Subduction Zone Science Plan. Expand the variety, accuracy, and timeliness of post-earthquake information products, such as PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), through incorporation of geodetic observations. Determine if geodetic measurements of transient deformation can significantly improve estimates of earthquake probability. Maintain an observational strategy aligned with the target outcomes of this document that includes continuous monitoring, recording of ephemeral observations, focused data collection for use in research, and application-driven data processing and analysis systems. Collaborate on research, development, and operation of affordable, high-precision seafloor geodetic methods that improve earthquake forecasting and event response. Advance computational techniques and instrumentation to enable use of strategies like repeat-pass imagery and low-cost geodetic sensors for earthquake response, monitoring, and research. Engage stakeholders and collaborate with partner institutions to foster operational and research objectives and to safeguard the continued health of geodetic infrastructure upon which we mutually depend. Maintaining a vibrant internal research program provides the foundation by which the EHP can remain an effective and trusted source for earthquake science. Exploiting abundant new data sources, evaluating and assimilating the latest science, and pursuing novel avenues of investigation are means to fulfilling the EHP’s core responsibilities and realizing the important scientific advances envisioned by its scientists. Central to the success of such a research program is engaging personnel with a breadth of competencies and a willingness and ability to adapt these to the program’s evolving priorities, enabling current staff to expand their skills and responsibilities, and planning holistically to meet shared workforce needs. In parallel, collaboration with external partners to support scientific investigations that complement ongoing internal research enables the EHP to strengthen earthquake information products by incorporating alternative perspectives and approaches and to study topics and geographic regions that cannot be adequately covered internally. With commensurate support from technical staff who possess diverse skills, including engineering, information technology, and proficiency in quantitative analysis combined with basic geophysical knowledge, the EHP can achieve the geodetic outcomes identified in this document.
Across the country, public land managers make decisions each year that influence landscapes and ecosystems within their jurisdictions. Many of these decisions involve vegetation manipulations, which often are referred to as land treatments. These treatments include removal or alteration of plant biomass, seeding of burned areas, application of herbicides, and other activities. Data documenting these land treatments usually are stored at local management offices in various formats. Therefore, anyone interested in the types and effects of land treatments across multiple jurisdictions must first assemble the information, which can be difficult if data discovery and organization involve multiple local offices. A centralized system for storing and accessing the data helps inform land managers when making policy and management considerations and assists scientists in developing sampling designs and studies. The Land Treatment Digital Library (LTDL) was created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as a comprehensive database incorporating tabular data, documentation, photographs, and spatial data about land treatments in a single system. It was developed over a period of several years and refined based on feedback from partner agencies and stakeholders. Currently, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land treatment data are being entered by USGS personnel as part of a memorandum of understanding between the USGS and BLM. The LTDL has a website maintained by the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center where LTDL data can be viewed https://www.usgs.gov/apps/ltdl . The resources and information provided in this data series allow other agencies, organizations, and individuals to download an empty, stand-alone LTDL database to individual or networked computers. Data entered in these databases may be submitted to the USGS for possible inclusion in the online LTDL. Multiple computer programs are used to accomplish the objective of the LTDL. The support of an information-technology specialist or professionals familiar with Microsoft Access™, ESRI’s ArcGIS™, Python, Adobe Acrobat Professional™, and computer settings is essential when installing and operating the LTDL. After the program is operational, a critical element for successful data entry is an understanding of the difference between database tables and forms, and how to edit data in both formats. Complete instructions accompany the program, and they should be followed carefully to ensure the setup and operation of the database goes smoothly.
In the fall of 2005, the Directors of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that to ensure that the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) of the USGS maintains and continues its important support of conservation and management of birds, it should be guided by a clear vision for the future. In order to carry out this task, they impaneled a fourteen-member Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) on the Bird Banding Laboratory. It was made up of representatives of the broad bird-banding community, public and private, and was cochaired by a senior representative from each agency. The Committee met four times and a writing subgroup met three times over the course of its work. The Committee identified a new vision and mission for the BBL and identified six goals that it believes should be integral to the development of a strategic plan to achieve them. Those goals are: 1. Facilitate the identification of individual birds through marking. 2. Create automated, electronic systems that efficiently verify, accept, store, and manage data associated with individually marked birds. 3. Facilitate access to and use of data from marked birds for science, conservation, and management. 4. Administer permits in an efficient, timely, and modern manner, and use them to ensure that bird welfare and data quality remain top priorities. 5. Work closely with national and international partners to achieve the mission of the BBL. 6. Manage the BBL in an efficient, cost-effective manner to maximize use of available resources. Most of the report is structured around these goals. The Committee made 2 programmatic recommendations and identified 23 objectives and 58 specific recommendations. The programmatic recommendations are: (1) that the primary role of the BBL is and should continue to be to support the use of banding and banding data by researchers and managers engaged in science, conservation, and management of birds, and not to play a lead role in original research; and (2) that the BBL be managed nationally by USGS headquarters as a research and operational support unit and provided with the resources appropriate to its national and international functions and responsibilities; it should continue to be located physically at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC). In order to achieve its vision and mission, the Committee believes that the BBL must work towards achieving all of the recommendations in this report. Nevertheless, it identified five objectives that stand out as high priority, and they are as follows: *Objective 1.1?to ensure a continuing, adequate supply of high-quality, Federally issued numeric bands of required sizes, materials, and types; *Objective 2.1?to improve mechanisms for verifying, accepting, storing, and managing bird-banding data; *Objective 2.3?to accommodate recapture data; *Objective 4.1?to ensure through the permitting process that banders know how to safely handle birds, collect data accurately, and maintain birds in humane and healthful conditions; and *Objective 5.3?to encourage the development of banding programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Finally, this Committee believes that the BBL will be well served if it continues to support a Federal Advisory Committee, composed similarly to this one, to continue offering guidance and direction from the broad bird-banding community.
Land surface elevation around the world is reaching new heights—as far as its description and measurement goes. A new global digital elevation model (DEM) is being cited as a significant improvement in the quality of topographic data available for Earth science studies. Land surface elevation is one of the Earth's most fundamental geophysical properties, but the accuracy and detail with which it has been measured and described globally have been insufficient for many large-area studies. The new model, developed at the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) EROS Data Center (EDC), has changed all that.
In the early 1980s, the Space Science Board (SSB) of the National Research Council was concerned about the poor and inconsistent treatment of scientific information returned from NASA’s space science missions. The SSB formed a panel [The Committee on Data Management and Computation (CODMAC)] to assess the situation and make recommendations to NASA for improvements. The CODMAC panel issued a report [1,2] that led to a number of actions, one of which was the convening of a Planetary Data Workshop in November 1983 [3]. The key findings of that workshop were that (1) important datasets were being irretrievably lost, and (2) the use of planetary data by the wider community is constrained by inaccessibility and a lack of commonality in format and documentation. The report further stated, “Most participants felt the present system (of data archiving and access) is inadequate and immediate changes are necessary to insure retention of and access to these and future datasets.”
This report provides a summary of responses to the questions included in a survey of individuals who use or have used data created and provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Gap Analysis Program (GAP). The survey was commissioned by the GAP main office and was conducted by U.S. Geological Survey personnel in the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance branch. The data collection process started on September 18, 2012, and ended on November 9, 2012. The dataset includes the responses from 359 individuals. The adjusted response rate for the survey was 35 percent. This report provides a summary of results for the survey questions in the order in which the questions were asked. The text of comments provided by respondents to open-ended questions is provided.