USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Data”

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 649 records · Page 36Linked to original sources
USGS1987

Design of a spatial data structure using the relational normal forms

In previous work, a relational data structure aimed at the exchange of spatial data between systems was developed. As this data structure was relational it was of first normal form, but compliance with the higher normal forms was not investigated. Recently, a new procedural method for composing fully normalized data structures from the basic data fields has been developed by H. C. Smith, as an alternative to the process of non-loss decomposition which is difficult to understand. Smith's method has been applied to data fields required to store points, lines and polygons in a chain-node spatial data model. When geographic domain, coverage layer and map are also considered, the procedure naturally leads to a catalogue model, needed for the exchange of spatial data. Although the method produces a fully normalized data structure, it is not as easy to identify which normal forms are responsible for the ultimate arrangement of the data fields into relations, but the benefits of these criteria for data base development also apply to spatial data structures and related ancillary data.

International Journal of Geographical Information ↗
USGS2015

Interactive access to LP DAAC satellite data archives through a combination of open-source and custom middleware web services

Current methods of searching for and retrieving data from satellite land remote sensing archives do not allow for interactive information extraction. Instead, Earth science data users are required to download files over low-bandwidth networks to local workstations and process data before science questions can be addressed. New methods of extracting information from data archives need to become more interactive to meet user demands for deriving increasingly complex information from rapidly expanding archives. Moving the tools required for processing data to computer systems of data providers, and away from systems of the data consumer, can improve turnaround times for data processing workflows. The implementation of middleware services was used to provide interactive access to archive data. The goal of this middleware services development is to enable Earth science data users to access remote sensing archives for immediate answers to science questions instead of links to large volumes of data to download and process. Exposing data and metadata to web-based services enables machine-driven queries and data interaction. Also, product quality information can be integrated to enable additional filtering and sub-setting. Only the reduced content required to complete an analysis is then transferred to the user.

IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters↗
USGS2000

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Data Processing System manual [ADCP]

This open-file report describes the data processing software currently in use by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center (WHCMSC), to process time series of acoustic Doppler current data obtained by Teledyne RD Instruments Workhorse model ADCPs. The Sediment Transport Instrumentation Group (STG) at the WHCMSC has a long-standing commitment to providing scientists high quality oceanographic data published in a timely manner. To meet this commitment, STG has created this software to aid personnel in processing and reviewing data as well as evaluating hardware for signs of instrument malfunction. The output data format for the data is network Common Data Form (netCDF), which meets USGS publication standards. Typically, ADCP data are recorded in beam coordinates. This conforms to the USGS philosophy to post-process rather than internally process data. By preserving the original data quality indicators as well as the initial data set, data can be evaluated and reprocessed for different types of analyses. Beam coordinate data are desirable for internal and surface wave experiments, for example. All the code in this software package is intended to run using the MATLAB program available from The Mathworks, Inc. As such, it is platform independent and can be adapted by the USGS and others for specialized experiments with non-standard requirements. The software is continuously being updated and revised as improvements are required. The most recent revision may be downloaded from: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/operations/stg/Pubs/ADCPtools/adcp_index.htm The USGS makes this software available at the user?s discretion and responsibility.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Hydrogeologic data for the Big River–Mishnock River stream-aquifer system, central Rhode Island

Hydrogeology, ground-water development alternatives, and water quality in the BigMishnock stream-aquifer system in central Rhode Island are being investigated as part of a long-term cooperative program between the Rhode Island Water Resources Board and the U.S. Geological Survey to evaluate the ground-water resources throughout Rhode Island. The study area includes the Big River drainage basin and that portion of the Mishnock River drainage basin upstream from the Mishnock River at State Route 3. This report presents geologic data and hydrologic and water-quality data for ground and surface water. Ground-water data were collected from July 1996 through September 1998 from a network of observation wells consisting of existing wells and wells installed for this study, which provided a broad distribution of data-collection sites throughout the study area. Streambed piezometers were used to obtain differences in head data between surface-water levels and ground-water levels to help evaluate stream-aquifer interactions throughout the study area. The types of data presented include monthly ground-water levels, average daily ground-water withdrawals, drawdown data from aquifer tests, and water-quality data. Historical water-level data from other wells within the study area also are presented in this report. Surface-water data were obtained from a network consisting of surface-water impoundments, such as ponds and reservoirs, existing and newly established partial-record stream-discharge sites, and synoptic surface-water-quality sites. Water levels were collected monthly from the surface-water impoundments. Stream-discharge measurements were made at partial-record sites to provide measurements of inflow, outflow, and internal flow throughout the study area. Specific conductance was measured monthly at partial-record sites during the study, and also during the fall and spring of 1997 and 1998 at 41 synoptic sites throughout the study area. General geologic data, such as estimates of depth to bedrock and depth to water table, as well as indications of underlying geologic structure, were obtained from geophysical surveys. Site-specific geologic data were collected during the drilling of observation wells and test holes. These data include depth to bedrock or refusal, depth to water table, and lithologic information.

Rhode Island↗
USGS2001

Quality-assurance data for routine water quality analyses by the U. S. Geological Survey laboratory in Troy, New York; July 1993 through June 1995

A laboratory for analysis of low-ionic strength water has been developed at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) office in Troy, N.Y., to analyze samples collected by USGS projects in the Northeast. The laboratory's quality-assurance program is based on internal and interlaboratory quality-assurance samples and quality-control procedures developed to ensure proper sample collection, processing, and analysis. The quality-assurance/quality-control data are stored in the laboratory's SAS data-management system, which provides efficient review, compilation, and plotting of quality-assurance/quality-control data. This report presents and discusses samples analyzed from July 1993 through June 1995. Quality-control results for 18 analytical procedures were evaluated for bias and precision. Control charts show that data from seven of the analytical procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for either high-concentration or low-concentration samples but were within control limits; these procedures were: acid-neutralizing capacity, dissolved inorganic carbon, dissolved organic carbon (soil expulsions), chloride, magnesium, nitrate (colorimetric method), and pH. Three of the analytical procedures were occasionally biased but were within control limits; they were: calcium (high for high-concentration samples for May 1995), dissolved organic carbon (high for highconcentration samples from January through September 1994), and fluoride (high in samples for April and June 1994). No quality-control sample has been developed for the organic monomeric aluminum procedure. Results from the filter-blank and analytical-blank analyses indicate that all analytical procedures in which blanks were run were within control limits, although values for a few blanks were outside the control limits. Blanks were not analyzed for acid-neutralizing capacity, dissolved inorganic carbon, fluoride, nitrate (colorimetric method), or pH. Sampling and analysis precision are evaluated herein in terms of the coefficient of variation obtained for triplicate samples in 14 of the 18 procedures. Data-quality objectives were met by more than 90 percent of the samples analyzed in all procedures except total monomeric aluminum (85 percent of samples met objectives), total aluminum (70 percent of samples met objectives), and dissolved organic carbon (85 percent of samples met objectives). Triplicate samples were not analyzed for ammonium, fluoride, dissolved inorganic carbon, or nitrate (colorimetric method). Results of the USGS interlaboratory Standard Reference Sample Program indicated high data quality with a median result of 3.6 of a possible 4.0. Environment Canada's LRTAP interlaboratory study results indicated that more than 85 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives in 6 of the 12 analyses; exceptions were calcium, dissolved organic carbon, chloride, pH, potassium, and sodium. Data-quality objectives were not met for calcium samples in one LRTAP study, but 94 percent of samples analyzed were within control limits for the remaining studies. Data-quality objectives were not met by 35 percent of samples analyzed for dissolved organic carbon, but 94 percent of sample values were within 20 percent of the most probable value. Data-quality objectives were not met for 30 percent of samples analyzed for chloride, but 90 percent of sample values were within 20 percent of the most probable value. Measurements of samples with a pH above 6.0 were biased high in 54 percent of the samples, although 85 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for pH measurements below 6.0. Data-quality objectives for potassium and sodium were not met in one study (only 33 percent of the samples analyzed met the objectives), although 85 percent of the sample values were within control limits for the other studies. Measured sodium values were above the upper control limit in all studies. Results from blind reference-sample analyses indicated that data

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Water-quality and lake-stage data for Wisconsin lakes, water year 2001

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and other agencies, collects data at selected lakes throughout Wisconsin. These data, accumulated over many years, provide a data base for developing an improved understanding of the water quality of lakes. To make these data available to interested parties outside the USGS, the data are published annually in this report series. The locations of water-quality and lake-stage stations in Wisconsin for water year 2001 are shown in figure 1. A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. It is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001 is called "water year 2001." The purpose of this report is to provide information about the chemical and physical characteristics of Wisconsin lakes. Data that have been collected at specific lakes, and information to aid in the interpretation of those data, are included in this report. Data collected include measurements of in-lake water quality and lake stage. Time series of Secchi depths, surface total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations collected during non-frozen periods are included for all lakes. Graphs of vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance are included for sites where these parameters were measured. Descriptive information for each lake includes: location of the lake, area of the lake's watershed, period for which data are available, revisions to previously published records, and pertinent remarks. Additional data, such as streamflow and water quality in tributary and outlet streams of some of the lakes, are published in another volume: "Water Resources Data-Wisconsin, 2001." Water-resources data, including stage and discharge data at most streamflow-gaging stations, are available throught the World Wide Web on the Internet. The Wisconsin District's home page is at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/. Information on the Wisconsin District's Lakes Program is found at wi.water.usgs.gov/lake/index.html.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2004

Water-quality and lake-stage data for Wisconsin Lakes, water year 2003

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and other agencies, collects data at selected lakes throughout Wisconsin. These data, accumulated over many years, provide a data base for developing an improved understanding of the water quality of lakes. To make these data available to interested parties outside the USGS, the data are published annually in this report series. The locations of water-quality and lake-stage stations in Wisconsin for water year 2003 are shown in figure 1. A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. It is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003 is called "water year 2003." The purpose of this report is to provide information about the chemical and physical characteristics of Wisconsin lakes. Data that have been collected at specific lakes, and information to aid in the interpretation of those data, are included in this report. Data collected include measurements of in-lake water quality and lake stage. Time series of Secchi depths, surface total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations collected during non-frozen periods are included for all lakes. Graphs of vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance are included for sites where these parameters were measured. Descriptive infor- mation for each lake includes: location of the lake, area of the lake's watershed, period for which data are available, revisions to previously published records, and pertinent remarks. Additional data, such as streamflow and water quality in tributary and outlet streams of some of the lakes, are published in another volume: "Water Resources Data-Wisconsin, 2003." Water-resources data, including stage and discharge data at most streamflow-gaging stations, are available throught the World Wide Web on the Internet. The Wisconsin District's home page is at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/. Information on the Wisconsin District's Lakes Program is found at wi.water.usgs.gov/lake/index.html and wi.water.usgs.gov/projects/ index.html.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2005

Water-quality and Llake-stage data for Wisconsin Lakes, Water Year 2004

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and other agencies, collects data at selected lakes throughout Wisconsin. These data, accumulated over many years, provide a data base for developing an improved understanding of the water quality of lakes. To make these data available to interested parties outside the USGS, the data are published annually in this report series. The locations of water-quality and lake-stage stations in Wisconsin for water year 2004 are shown in figure 1. A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. It is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the period October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 is called 'water year 2004.' The purpose of this report is to provide information about the chemical and physical characteristics of Wisconsin lakes. Data that have been collected at specific lakes, and information to aid in the interpretation of those data, are included in this report. Data collected include measurements of in-lake water quality and lake stage. Time series of Secchi depths, surface total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations collected during non-frozen periods are included for all lakes. Graphs of vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance are included for sites where these parameters were measured. Descriptive information for each lake includes: location of the lake, area of the lake's watershed, period for which data are available, revisions to previously published records, and pertinent remarks. Additional data, such as streamflow and water quality in tributary and outlet streams of some of the lakes, are published in another volume: 'Water Resources Data-Wisconsin, 2004.' Water-resources data, including stage and discharge data at most streamflow-gaging stations, are available throught the World Wide Web on the Internet. The Wisconsin Water Science Center's home page is at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/. Information on the Wisconsin Water Science Center's Lakes Program is found at wi.water.usgs.gov/lake/index.html and wi.water.usgs.gov/projects/index.html

Wisconsin↗
USGS2006

Watershed Data Management (WDM) Database for Salt Creek Streamflow Simulation, DuPage County, Illinois

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with DuPage County Department of Engineering, Stormwater Management Division, maintains a database of hourly meteorologic and hydrologic data for use in a near real-time streamflow simulation system, which assists in the management and operation of reservoirs and other flood-control structures in the Salt Creek watershed in DuPage County, Illinois. The majority of the precipitation data are collected from a tipping-bucket rain-gage network located in and near DuPage County. The other meteorologic data (wind speed, solar radiation, air temperature, and dewpoint temperature) are collected at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois. Potential evapotranspiration is computed from the meteorologic data. The hydrologic data (discharge and stage) are collected at USGS streamflow-gaging stations in DuPage County. These data are stored in a Watershed Data Management (WDM) database. This report describes a version of the WDM database that was quality-assured and quality-controlled annually to ensure the datasets were complete and accurate. This version of the WDM database contains data from January 1, 1997, through September 30, 2004, and is named SEP04.WDM. This report provides a record of time periods of poor data for each precipitation dataset and describes methods used to estimate the data for the periods when data were missing, flawed, or snowfall-affected. The precipitation dataset data-filling process was changed in 2001, and both processes are described. The other meteorologic and hydrologic datasets in the database are fully described in the annual U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report for Illinois and, therefore, are described in less detail than the precipitation datasets in this report.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Water-Quality and Lake-Stage Data for Wisconsin Lakes, Water Year 2006

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and other agencies, collects data at selected lakes throughout Wisconsin. These data, accumulated over many years, provide a data base for developing an improved understanding of the water quality of lakes. To make these data available to interested parties outside the USGS, the data are published annually in this report series. The locations of water-quality and lake-stage stations in Wisconsin for water year 2006 are shown in figure 1. A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. It is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 is called 'water year 2006.' The purpose of this report is to provide information about the chemical and physical characteristics of Wisconsin lakes. Data that have been collected at specific lakes, and information to aid in the interpretation of those data, are included in this report. Data collected include measurements of in-lake water quality and lake stage. Time series of Secchi depths, surface total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations collected during non-frozen periods are included for all lakes. Graphs of vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance are included for sites where these parameters were measured. Descriptive information for each lake includes: location of the lake, area of the lake's watershed, period for which data are available, revisions to previously published records, and pertinent remarks. Additional data, such as streamflow and water quality in tributary and outlet streams of some of the lakes, are published in another volume: 'Water Resources Data-Wisconsin, 2006.' Water-resources data, including stage and discharge data at most streamflow-gaging stations, are available through the World Wide Web on the Internet. The Wisconsin Water Science Center's home page is at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/. Information on the Wisconsin Water Science Center's Lakes Program is found at http://wi.water.usgs.gov/lake/index.html and http://wi.water.usgs.gov/projects/index.html.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Quality-assurance data for routine water analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory in Troy, New York - July 2003 through June 2005

The laboratory for analysis of low-ionic-strength water at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Center in Troy, N.Y., analyzes samples collected by USGS projects throughout the Northeast. The laboratory's quality-assurance program is based on internal and interlaboratory quality-assurance samples and quality-control procedures that were developed to ensure proper sample collection, processing, and analysis. The quality-assurance and quality-control data were stored in the laboratory's Lab Master data-management system, which provides efficient review, compilation, and plotting of data. This report presents and discusses results of quality-assurance and quality control samples analyzed from July 2003 through June 2005. Results for the quality-control samples for 20 analytical procedures were evaluated for bias and precision. Control charts indicate that data for five of the analytical procedures were occasionally biased for either high-concentration or low-concentration samples but were within control limits; these procedures were: acid-neutralizing capacity, total monomeric aluminum, pH, silicon, and sodium. Seven of the analytical procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the high-concentration sample, but were within control limits; these procedures were: dissolved organic carbon, chloride, nitrate (ion chromatograph), nitrite, silicon, sodium, and sulfate. The calcium and magnesium procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the low-concentration sample, but were within control limits. The total aluminum and specific conductance procedures were biased for the high-concentration and low-concentration samples, but were within control limits. Results from the filter-blank and analytical-blank analyses indicate that the procedures for 17 of 18 analytes were within control limits, although the concentrations for blanks were occasionally outside the control limits. The data-quality objective was not met for dissolved organic carbon. Sampling and analysis precision are evaluated herein in terms of the coefficient of variation obtained for triplicate samples in the procedures for 18 of the 22 analytes. At least 85 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for all analytes except total monomeric aluminum (82 percent of samples met objectives), total aluminum (77 percent of samples met objectives), chloride (80 percent of samples met objectives), fluoride (76 percent of samples met objectives), and nitrate (ion chromatograph) (79 percent of samples met objectives). The ammonium and total dissolved nitrogen did not meet the data-quality objectives. Results of the USGS interlaboratory Standard Reference Sample (SRS) Project indicated good data quality over the time period, with ratings for each sample in the satisfactory, good, and excellent ranges or less than 10 percent error. The P-sample (low-ionic-strength constituents) analysis had one marginal and two unsatisfactory ratings for the chloride procedure. The T-sample (trace constituents)analysis had two unsatisfactory ratings and one high range percent error for the aluminum procedure. The N-sample (nutrient constituents) analysis had one marginal rating for the nitrate procedure. Results of Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute (NWRI) program indicated that at least 84 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for 11 of the 14 analytes; the exceptions were ammonium, total aluminum, and acid-neutralizing capacity. The ammonium procedure did not meet data quality objectives in all studies. Data-quality objectives were not met in 23 percent of samples analyzed for total aluminum and 45 percent of samples analyzed acid-neutralizing capacity. Results from blind reference-sample analyses indicated that data-quality objectives were met by at least 86 percent of the samples analyzed for calcium, chloride, fluoride, magnesium, pH, potassium, sodium, and sulfate. Data-quality objectives were not met by samples analyzed for fluoride.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Usage and administration manual for a geodatabase compendium of water-resources data: Rio Grande Basin from the Rio Arriba-Sandoval County line, New Mexico, to Presidio, Texas, 1889-2009

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, developed a geodatabase compendium (hereinafter referred to as the 'geodatabase') of available water-resources data for the reach of the Rio Grande from Rio Arriba-Sandoval County line, New Mexico, to Presidio, Texas. Since 1889, a wealth of water-resources data has been collected in the Rio Grande Basin from Rio Arriba-Sandoval County line, New Mexico, to Presidio, Texas, for a variety of purposes. Collecting agencies, researchers, and organizations have included the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, International Boundary and Water Commission, State agencies, irrigation districts, municipal water utilities, universities, and other entities. About 1,750 data records were recently (2010) evaluated to enhance their usability by compiling them into a single geospatial relational database (geodatabase). This report is intended as a user's manual and administration guide for the geodatabase. All data available, including water quality, water level, and discharge data (both instantaneous and daily) from January 1, 1889, through December 17, 2009, were compiled for the study area. A flexible and efficient geodatabase design was used, enhancing the ability of the geodatabase to handle data from diverse sources and helping to ensure sustainability of the geodatabase with long-term maintenance. Geodatabase tables include daily data values, site locations and information, sample event information, and parameters, as well as data sources and collecting agencies. The end products of this effort are a comprehensive water-resources geodatabase that enables the visualization of primary sampling sites for surface discharges, groundwater elevations, and water-quality and associated data for the study area. In addition, repeatable data processing scripts, Structured Query Language queries for loading prepared data sources, and a detailed process for refreshing all data in the compendium have been developed. The geodatabase functionality allows users to explore spatial characteristics of the data, conduct spatial analyses, and pose questions to the geodatabase in the form of queries. Users can also customize and extend the geodatabase, combine it with other databases, or use the geodatabase design for other water-resources applications.

New Mexico, Texas↗
USGS2017

Watershed Data Management (WDM) database for West Branch DuPage River streamflow simulation, DuPage County, Illinois, January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2013

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the DuPage County Stormwater Management Department, maintains a database of hourly meteorological and hydrologic data for use in a near real-time streamflow simulation system. This system is used in the management and operation of reservoirs and other flood-control structures in the West Branch DuPage River watershed in DuPage County, Illinois. The majority of the precipitation data are collected from a tipping-bucket rain-gage network located in and near DuPage County. The other meteorological data (air temperature, dewpoint temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation) are collected at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill. Potential evapotranspiration is computed from the meteorological data using the computer program LXPET (Lamoreux Potential Evapotranspiration). The hydrologic data (water-surface elevation [stage] and discharge) are collected at U.S.Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in and around DuPage County. These data are stored in a Watershed Data Management (WDM) database. This report describes a version of the WDM database that is quality-assured and quality-controlled annually to ensure datasets are complete and accurate. This database is named WBDR13.WDM. It contains data from January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2013. Each precipitation dataset may have time periods of inaccurate data. This report describes the methods used to estimate the data for the periods of missing, erroneous, or snowfall-affected data and thereby improve the accuracy of these data. The other meteorological datasets are described in detail in Over and others (2010), and the hydrologic datasets in the database are fully described in the online USGS annual water data reports for Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016) and, therefore, are described in less detail than the precipitation datasets in this report.

Illinois↗
USGS2018

Leveraging geodetic data to reduce losses from earthquakes

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.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1976

Status of the National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX); September 1976

The National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX) has been established to assist users of water data in the identification, location, and acquisition of needed data. NAWDEX is not a depository of water data; its objectives are to provide the user with sufficient information to define what data are available, where these data may be obtained, and in what form they are available; also to describe some of their major characteristics. NAWDEX is comprised of water-oriented organizations in the Federal, State, and local governments, and in the academic and private sectors of the water-data community who work together to make their water data readily and conveniently available. Data search and referral services are currently provided through the Program Office established by the U.S. Geological Survey which has the lead-role responsibility for NAWDEX operations. During its first year of operation, a computerized Water Data Sources Directory was developed which identifies more than 300 organizations that collect water data, the types of data they collect, and the locations within these organizations from which the data may be obtained. NAWDEX is expanding its services and is establishing a nationwide network of Local Assistance Centers for local users ' access to these services. (Woodard-USGS)

Open-File Report↗
USGS1995

Water-quality and lake-stage data for Wisconsin lakes, water year 1994

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and other agencies, collects data at selected lakes throughout Wisconsin. These data, accumulated over many yes rs, provide a data base for developing an improved understanding of the water quality of lakes\ To make these data available to interested parties outside the USGS, the data are published annually in this report series. The location of surface water-quality and lake-stage stations in Wisconsin for water year 1994 are shown in figure 1. A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30. It is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of the 12 months. Thus the period October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994, is called "water year 1994." The purpose of this report is to provide information about the physical, che-nical, and biological characteristics of Wisconsin lakes. Data that have been collected at specific lakes, and information to aid in the interpretation of those data, are included in this report. Data collected includes measurements of lake stage and in-lake water quality. Graphs of Secchi depths, and total-phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations versus time are included for lakes with two or more years of data. Descriptive information for each lake includes location of the lake, drainage area of the lake's watershed, period for which data are available, revisions to previously published records, and pertinent remarks. Additional data, such as streamflow and water quality in tributary and outlet streams of some of the lakes, are published in two other volunres: "Water Resources Data-Wisconsin, 1994, St. Lawrence River Basin" (Volume 1) and "Water Resources Data-Wisconsin, 1994, Upper Mississippi River Basin" (Volume 2).

Wisconsin↗
USGS1998

Evaluation of chemical data from selected sites in the Surface-Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in Florida

A cooperative study between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Geological Survey was conducted to assess the integrity of selected water-quality data collected at 150 sites in the FDEP Surface-Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in Florida. The assessment included determining the consistency of the water-quality data collected statewide, including commonality of monitoring procedures and analytes, screening of the gross validity of a chemical analysis, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures. Four tests were used to screen data at selected SWAMP sites to estimate the gross validity of selected chemical data: (1) the ratio of dissolved solids (in milligrams per liter) to specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter); (2) the ratio of total cations (in milliequivalents per liter) multiplied by 100 to specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter); (3) the ratio of total anions (in milliequivalents per liter) multiplied by 100 to specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter); and (4) the ionic charge-balance error. Although the results of the four screening tests indicate that the chemical data generally are quite reliable, the extremely small number of samples (less than 5 percent of the total number of samples) with sufficient chemical information to run the tests may not provide a representative indication of the analytical accuracy of all laboratories in the program. In addition to the four screening tests, unusually low or high values were flagged for field and laboratory pH (less than 4.0 and greater than 9.0) and specific conductance (less than 10 and greater than 10,000 microsiemens per centimeter). The numbers of flagged data were less than 1 percent of the 19,937 water samples with pH values and less than 0.6 percent of the 16,553 water samples with specific conductance values. Thirty-four agencies responded to a detailed questionnaire that was sent to more than 60 agencies involved in the collection and analysis of surface-water-quality data for SWAMP. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate quality assurance methods and consistency of methods statewide. Information was compiled and summarized on monitoring network design, data review and upload procedures, laboratory and field sampling methods, and data practices. Currently, most agencies that responded to the survey follow FDEP-approved QA/QC protocol for sampling and have quality assurance practices for recording and reporting data. Also, most agencies responded that calibration procedures were followed in the laboratory for analysis of data, but no responses were given about the specific procedures. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents indicated that laboratory analysis methods have changed over time. With so many laboratories involved in analyzing samples for SWAMP, it is difficult to compare water quality from one site to another due to different reporting conventions for chemical constituents and different analytical methods over time. Most agencies responded that calibration methods are followed in the field, but no specific details were provided. Grab samples are the most common method of collection. Other data screening procedures are necessary to further evaluate the validity of chemical data collected at SWAMP sites. High variability in the concentration of targeted constituents may signal analytical problems, but more likely changes in concentration are related to hydrologic conditions. This underscores the need for accurate measurements of discharge, lake stage, tidal stage at the time of sampling so that changes in constituent concentrations can be properly evaluated and fluxes (loads) of nutrients or metals, for example, can be calculated and compared over time.

Florida↗
USGS2000

National Geochemical Database, U.S. Geological Survey RASS (Rock Analysis Storage System) geochemical data for Alaska

This dataset contains geochemical data for Alaska produced by the analytical laboratories of the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These data represent analyses of stream-sediment, heavy-mineral-concentrate (derived from stream sediment), soil, and organic material samples. Most of the data comes from mineral resource investigations conducted in the Alaska Mineral Resource Assessment Program (AMRAP). However, some of the data were produced in support of other USGS programs. The data were originally entered into the in-house Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS) database. The RASS database, which contains over 580,000 data records, was used by the Geologic Division from the early 1970's through the late 1980's to archive geochemical data. Much of the data have been previously published in paper copy USGS Open-File Reports by the submitter or the analyst but some of the data have never been published. Over the years, USGS scientists recognized several problems with the database. The two primary issues were location coordinates (either incorrect or lacking) and sample media (not precisely identified). This dataset represents a re-processing of the original RASS data to make the data accessible in digital format and more user friendly. This re-processing consisted of checking the information on sample media and location against the original sample submittal forms, the original analytical reports, and published reports. As necessary, fields were added to the original data to more fully describe the sample preparation methods used and sample medium analyzed. The actual analytical data were not checked in great detail, but obvious errors were corrected.

Alaska↗