USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “INformation”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,405 records · Page 78Linked to original sources
USGS2004

Converting analog interpretive data to digital formats for use in database and GIS applications

There is a growing need by researchers and managers for comprehensive and unified nationwide datasets of scientific data. These datasets must be in a digital format that is easily accessible using database and GIS applications, providing the user with access to a wide variety of current and historical information. Although most data currently being collected by scientists are already in a digital format, there is still a large repository of information in the literature and paper archive. Converting this information into a format accessible by computer applications is typically very difficult and can result in loss of data. However, since scientific data are commonly collected in a repetitious, concise matter (i.e., forms, tables, graphs, etc.), these data can be recovered digitally by using a conversion process that relates the position of an attribute in two-dimensional space to the information that the attribute signifies. For example, if a table contains a certain piece of information in a specific row and column, then the space that the row and column occupies becomes an index of that information. An index key is used to identify the relation between the physical location of the attribute and the information the attribute contains. The conversion process can be achieved rapidly, easily and inexpensively using widely available digitizing and spreadsheet software, and simple programming code. In the geological sciences, sedimentary character is commonly interpreted from geophysical profiles and descriptions of sediment cores. In the field and laboratory, these interpretations were typically transcribed to paper. The information from these paper archives is still relevant and increasingly important to scientists, engineers and managers to understand geologic processes affecting our environment. Direct scanning of this information produces a raster facsimile of the data, which allows it to be linked to the electronic world. But true integration of the content with database and GIS software as point, vector or text information is commonly lost. Sediment core descriptions and interpretation of geophysical profiles are usually portrayed as lines, curves, symbols and text information. They have vertical and horizontal dimensions associated with depth, category, time, or geographic position. These dimensions are displayed in consistent positions, which can be digitized and converted to a digital format, such as a spreadsheet. Once this data is in a digital, tabulated form it can easily be made available to a wide variety of imaging and data manipulation software for compilation and world-wide dissemination.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits of the World - Database and Grade and Tonnage Models

Grade and tonnage models are useful in quantitative mineral-resource assessments. The models and database presented in this report are an update of earlier publications about volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits. These VMS deposits include what were formerly classified as kuroko, Cyprus, and Besshi deposits. The update was necessary because of new information about some deposits, changes in information in some deposits, such as grades, tonnages, or ages, revised locations of some deposits, and reclassification of subtypes. In this report we have added new VMS deposits and removed a few incorrectly classified deposits. This global compilation of VMS deposits contains 1,090 deposits; however, it was not our intent to include every known deposit in the world. The data was recently used for mineral-deposit density models (Mosier and others, 2007; Singer, 2008). In this paper, 867 deposits were used to construct revised grade and tonnage models. Our new models are based on a reclassification of deposits based on host lithologies: Felsic, Bimodal-Mafic, and Mafic volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits. Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments for two reasons: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types vary significantly, and (2) deposits of different types occur in distinct geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral-deposit models combine the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features and demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed deposit models allow geologists to deduce possible mineral-deposit types in a given geologic environment and economists to determine the possible economic viability of these resources. Thus, mineral-deposit models play a central role in presenting geoscience information in a useful form to policy makers. The foundation of mineral-deposit models is information about known deposits. The purpose of this publication is to present the latest geologic information and newly developed grade and tonnage models for VMS deposits in digital form. This publication contains computer files with information on VMS deposits from around the world. It also presents new grade and tonnage models for three subtypes of VMS deposits and a text file allowing locations of all deposits to be plotted in geographic information system (GIS) programs. The data are presented in FileMaker Pro and text files to make the information available to a wider audience. The value of this information and any derived analyses depends critically on the consistent manner of data gathering. For this reason, we first discuss the rules used in this compilation. Next, we provide new grade and tonnage models and analysis of the information in the file. Finally, the fields of the data file are explained. Appendix A gives the summary statistics for the new grade-tonnage models and Appendix B displays the country codes used in the database.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Collection and analysis of traditional ecological knowledge about a population of arctic tundra caribou

Aboriginal peoples want their ecological knowledge used in the management of wildlife populations. To accomplish this, management agencies will need regional summaries of aboriginal knowledge about long-term changes in the distribution and abundance of wildlife populations and ecological factors that influence those changes. Between 1983 and 1994, we developed a method for collecting Inuit knowledge about historical changes in a caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) population on southern Baffin Island from c. 1900 to 1994. Advice from Inuit allowed us to collect and interpret their oral knowledge in culturally appropriate ways. Local Hunters and Trappers Associations (HTAs) and other Inuit identified potential informants to maximize the spatial and temporal scope of the study. In the final interview protocol, each informant (i) established his biographical map and time line, (ii) described changes in caribou distribution and density during his life, and (iii) discussed ecological factors that may have caused changes in caribou populations. Personal and parental observations of caribou distribution and abundance were reliable and precise. Inuit who had hunted caribou during periods of scarcity provided more extensive information than those hunters who had hunted mainly ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ); nevertheless, seal hunters provided information about coastal areas where caribou densities were insufficient for the needs of caribou hunters. The wording of our questions influenced the reliability of informants' answers; leading questions were especially problematic. We used only information that we considered reliable after analyzing the wording of both questions and answers from translated transcripts. This analysis may have excluded some reliable information because informants tended to understate certainty in their recollections. We tried to retain the accuracy and precision inherent in Inuit oral traditions; comparisons of information from several informants and comparisons with published and archival historical reports indicate that we retained these qualities of Inuit knowledge.

Nunavut↗
USGS2002

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2008

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2008

Each chapter of the 2008 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2007 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. National reserves and reserve base information for most mineral commodities found in this report, including those for the United States, are derived from a variety of sources. The ideal source of such information would be comprehensive evaluations that apply the same criteria to deposits in different geographic areas and report the results by country. In the absence of such evaluations, national reserves and reserve base estimates compiled by countries for selected mineral commodities are a primary source of national reserves and reserve base information. Lacking national assessment information by governments, sources such as academic articles, company reports, common business practice, presentations by company representatives, and trade journal articles, or a combination of these, serve as the basis for national reserves and reserve base information reported in the mineral commodity sections of this publication. A national estimate may be assembled from the following: historically reported reserves and reserve base information carried for years without alteration because no new information is available; historically reported reserves and reserve base reduced by the amount of historical production; and company reported reserves. International minerals availability studies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, before 1996, and estimates of identified resources by an international collaborative effort (the International Strategic Minerals Inventory) are the basis for some reserves and reserve base estimates. The USGS collects information about the quantity and quality of mineral resources but does not directly measure reserves, and companies or governments do not directly report reserves or reserve base to the USGS. Reassessment of reserves and reserve base is a continuing process and the intensity of this process differs for mineral commodities, countries, and time period. Abbreviations and units of measure, and definitions of selected terms used in the report, are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. A resource/reserve classification for minerals, based on USGS Circular 831 (published with the U.S. Bureau of Mines) is Appendix C, and a directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the MCS 2008 are welcomed.

Mineral Commodity Summaries↗
USGS2003

Intrusive rock database for the Digital Geologic Map of Utah

Digital geologic maps offer the promise of rapid and powerful answers to geologic questions using Geographic Information System software (GIS). Using modern GIS and database methods, a specialized derivative map can be easily prepared. An important limitation can be shortcomings in the information provided in the database associated with the digital map, a database which is often based on the legend of the original map. The purpose of this report is to show how the compilation of additional information can, when prepared as a database that can be used with the digital map, be used to create some types of derivative maps that are not possible with the original digital map and database. This Open-file Report consists of computer files with information about intrusive rocks in Utah that can be linked to the Digital Geologic Map of Utah (Hintze et al., 2000), an explanation of how to link the databases and map, and a list of references for the databases. The digital map, which represents the 1:500,000-scale Geologic Map of Utah (Hintze, 1980), can be obtained from the Utah Geological Survey (Map 179DM). Each polygon in the map has a unique identification number. We selected the polygons identified on the geologic map as intrusive rock, and constructed a database (UT_PLUT.xls) that classifies the polygons into plutonic map units (see tables). These plutonic map units are the key information that is used to relate the compiled information to the polygons on the map. The map includes a few polygons that were coded as intrusive on the state map but are largely volcanic rock; in these cases we note the volcanic rock names (rhyolite and latite) as used in the original sources Some polygons identified on the digital state map as intrusive rock were misidentified; these polygons are noted in a separate table of the database, along with some information about their true character. Fields may be empty because of lack of information from references used or difficulty in finding information. The information in the database is from a variety of sources, including geologic maps at scales ranging from 1:500,000 to 1:24,000, and thesis monographs. The references are shown twice: alphabetically and by region. The digital geologic map of Utah (Hintze and others, 2000) classifies intrusive rocks into only 3 categories, distinguished by age. They are: Ti, Tertiary intrusive rock; Ji, Upper to Middle Jurassic granite to quartz monzonite; and pCi, Early Proterozoic to Late Archean intrusive rock. Use of the tables provided in this report will permit selection and classification of those rocks by lithology and age. This database is a pilot study by the Survey and Analysis Project of the U.S. Geological Survey to characterize igneous rocks and link them to a digital map. The database, and others like it, will evolve as the project continues and other states are completed. We release this version now as an example, as a reference, and for those interested in Utah plutonic rocks.

Utah↗
USGS2009

Carbonatites of the world, explored deposits of Nb and REE— Database and grade and tonnage models

This report is based on published tonnage and grade data on 58 Nb- and rare-earth-element (REE)-bearing carbonatite deposits that are mostly well explored and are partially mined or contain resources of these elements. The deposits represent only a part of the known 527 carbonatites around the world, but they are characterized by reliable quantitative data on ore tonnages and grades of niobium and REE. Grade and tonnage models are an important component of mineral resource assessments. Carbonatites present one of the main natural sources of niobium and rare-earth elements, the economic importance of which grows consistently. A purpose of this report is to update earlier publications. New information about known deposits, as well as data on new deposits published during the last decade, are incorporated in the present paper. The compiled database (appendix 1; linked to right) contains 60 explored Nb- and REE-bearing carbonatite deposits - resources of 55 of these deposits are taken from publications. In the present updated grade-tonnage model we have added 24 deposits comparing with the previous model of Singer (1998). Resources of most deposits are residuum ores in the upper part of carbonatite bodies. Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments for two reasons: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types vary significantly, and (2) deposits of different types are present in distinct geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral-deposit models combine the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features and demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed deposit models allow geologists to deduce possible mineral-deposit types in a given geologic environment, and the grade and tonnage models allow economists to estimate the possible economic viability of these resources. Thus, mineral-deposit models play a central role in presenting geoscience information in a useful form to policy makers. The foundation of mineral-deposit models is information about known deposits. This publication presents the latest geologic information and newly developed grade and tonnage models for Nb- and REE-carbonatite deposits in digital form. The publication contains computer files with information on deposits from around the world. It also contains a text file allowing locations of all deposits to be plotted in geographic information system (GIS) programs. The data are presented in FileMaker Pro as well as in .xls and text files to make the information available to a broadly based audience. The value of this information and any derived analyses depends critically on the consistent manner of data gathering. For this reason, we first discuss the rules used in this compilation. Next, the fields of the database are explained. Finally, we provide new grade and tonnage models and analysis of the information in the file.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Updated numerical model with uncertainty assessment of 1950-56 drought conditions on brackish-water movement within the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio, Texas

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System, began a study to assess the brackish-water movement within the Edwards aquifer (more specifically the potential for brackish-water encroachment into wells near the interface between the freshwater and brackish-water transition zones, referred to in this report as the transition-zone interface) and effects on spring discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs under drought conditions using a numerical model. The quantitative targets of this study are to predict the effects of higher-than-average groundwater withdrawals from wells and drought-of-record rainfall conditions of 1950–56 on (1) dissolved-solids concentration changes at production wells near the transition-zone interface, (2) total spring discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs, and (3) the groundwater head (head) at Bexar County index well J-17. The predictions of interest, and the parameters implemented into the model, were evaluated to quantify their uncertainty so the results of the predictions could be presented in terms of a 95-percent credible interval. The model area covers the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer; the history-matching effort was focused on the San Antonio segment. A previously developed diffuse-flow model of the Edwards aquifer, which forms the basis for the model in this assessment, is primarily based on a conceptualization in which flow in the aquifer is predominately through a network of numerous small fractures and openings. Primary updates to this model include an extension of the active area downdip, a conversion to an 8-layer SEAWAT variable-density flow and transport model to simulate dissolved-solids concentration effects on water density, history matching to 1999–2009 conditions, and parameter estimation in a highly parameterized context using automated methods in PEST (a model-independent Parameter ESTimation code). In addition to the best-fit parameter values derived from history matching, the uncertainty of model parameters was also estimated by using linear uncertainty analysis. Comparison of “prior” (before history matching) and “posterior” (after history matching) variances of parameters indicate that the information within the observation dataset used for history matching informs many parameters. The concentration threshold parameters were well-informed by the observation dataset as their posterior distributions were much narrower than their prior distributions. The transition-zone scaling parameters of hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, and specific storage were all informed by the observation dataset, as evidenced by the difference between the prior and posterior variances. Saline-zone scaling parameters, alternatively, were not informed by the observation dataset for effective porosity and specific storage. Resulting posterior drier-month, wetter-month, and annual recharge multiplier parameter variances are important to understanding how well recharge is estimated and implemented within the model. The shifts of the posterior distributions left and right indicate that there were zones where less or more water was needed in the model. The widths of the distributions were not decreased substantially, indicating that many of the best-fit recharge parameters are not statistically different from the initial values specified in the history-matching effort. Recharge from rainfall is the driving force behind groundwater flow and heads in the aquifer; therefore, an increase in understanding of this process would benefit model development by potentially decreasing the uncertainty of this parameter. The history-matching effort was most helpful in informing the parameters in the model that control discharge at springs, namely, the spring orifice (drain) altitude and drain conductance parameters for each spring. The uncertainty assessment of the predictive model (a hypothetical recurrence of 1950–56 drought conditions and higher-than-average groundwater withdrawals from wells) provided insights into the potential effects of these conditions on dissolved-solids concentration changes at production wells near the transition-zone interface, discharges at Comal and San Marcos Springs, and heads at Bexar County index well J-17. Results at the 25 production wells near the transition-zone interface indicate that the uncertainty of model input parameters based on expert knowledge yielded an upper bound of the 95-percent credible interval of dissolved-solids concentrations that exceeds the secondary drinking water standards of 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for many wells. However, the history-matching process provided key information to inform prediction-sensitive model parameters and therefore, contributed to a substantial decrease of the upper bound of the 95-percent credible interval to below the secondary drinking water standards. Reductions in dissolved-solids concentration changes were on the order of 400 mg/L to 1,300 mg/L. The reduction in uncertainty in regards to this prediction implies that this prediction of dissolved-solids concentration change can be made with some certainty using this current model and that those parameters that control this prediction are informed by the observation dataset. Even though predictive uncertainty was reduced for this prediction, dissolved-solids concentration changes were still greater than zero, indicating a minimal increase in concentration at these 25 production wells during the 7-year simulation period is likely. However, this minimal concentration increase indicates a small potential for movement of the brackish-water transition zone near these wells during the 7-year simulation period of drought-ofrecord (1950–56) rainfall conditions with higher-than-average groundwater withdrawals by wells. Predictive results of total spring discharge during the 7-year period, as well as head predictions at Bexar County index well J-17, were much different than the dissolved-solids concentration change results at the production wells. These upper bounds are an order of magnitude larger than the actual prediction which implies that (1) the predictions of total spring discharge at Comal and San Marcos Springs and head at Bexar County index well J-17 made with this model are not reliable, and (2) parameters that control these predictions are not informed well by the observation dataset during historymatching, even though the history-matching process yielded parameters to reproduce spring discharges and heads at these locations during the history-matching period. Furthermore, because spring discharges at these two springs and heads at Bexar County index well J-17 represent more of a cumulative effect of upstream conditions over a larger distance (and longer time), many more parameters (with their own uncertainties) are potentially controlling these predictions than the prediction of dissolved-solids concentration change at the prediction wells, and therefore contributing to a large posterior uncertainty.

Texas↗
USGS2015

Aftershock communication during the Canterbury Earthquakes, New Zealand: Implications for response and recovery in the built environment

On 4 September 2010, a Mw7.1 earthquake occurred in Canterbury, New Zealand. Following the initial earthquake, an aftershock sequence was initiated, with the most significant aftershock being a Mw6.3 earthquake occurring on 22 February 2011. This aftershock caused severe damage to the city of Christchurch and building failures that killed 185 people. During the aftershock sequence it became evident that effective communication of aftershock information (e.g., history and forecasts) was imperative to assist with decision making during the response and recovery phases of the disaster, as well as preparedness for future aftershock events. As a consequence, a joint JCDR-USGS research project was initiated to investigate: • How aftershock information was communicated to organisations and to the public; • How people interpreted that information; • What people did in response to receiving that information; • What information people did and did not need; and • What decision-making challenges were encountered relating to aftershocks. Research was conducted by undertaking focus group meetings and interviews with a range of information providers and users, including scientists and science advisors, emergency managers and responders, engineers, communication officers, businesses, critical infrastructure operators, elected officials, and the public. The interviews and focus group meetings were recorded and transcribed, and key themes were identified. This paper focuses on the aftershock information needs for decision-making about the built environment post-earthquake, including those involved in response (e.g., for building assessment and management), recovery/reduction (e.g., the development of new building standards), and readiness (e.g. between aftershocks). The research has found that the communication of aftershock information varies with time, is contextual, and is affected by interactions among roles, by other information, and by decision objectives. A number of general and specific insights into improving the communication of aftershock information are provided.

Canterbury↗
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2007

Applying radar technology to migratory bird conservation and management: Strengthening and expanding a collaborative

Executive Summary Understanding the factors affecting migratory bird and bat populations during all three phases of their life cycle—breeding, nonbreeding, and migration—is critical to species conservation planning. This includes the need for information about these species’ responses to natural challenges, as well as information about the effects of human activities and structures. Habitats and other resources critical to migrants during passage and stopover are being destroyed, degraded, and threatened by human activities. Birds and bats are also uniquely susceptible to human use of the airspace. Wind turbines, communication and power transmission towers, and other tall structures, known to cause bird and bat mortality, are being erected or proposed in increasing numbers across the country. In addition, the potential for bird/aircraft collisions poses human safety threats. Management and regulatory agencies, conservation organizations, and industry currently lack the information they need to meet their missions and statutory responsibilities. The biological data available from various radar technologies offer a unique opportunity to learn more about the spatiotemporal distribution patterns, flight characteristics, and habitat use of “aero-fauna.” Recognizing the opportunities presented by radar technologies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and university partners collaborated first on individual projects and then in a broader, informal “collaborative” to coordinate their radar-related research and work together to develop the suite of products needed for conservation of birds and bats. Having produced two summary documents (Sojda and others, 2005; Ruth and others, 2005), the next objective was to convene a workshop for researchers, management and regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. The focus of this initial workshop was on strengthening the existing USGS-USFWS-university partnership and expanding the “collaborative” to include new Federal agency partners. The subject matter was centered on discussing available technologies, appropriate applications, management-related needs, and ways to strengthen collaborative research and conservation efforts. The workshop opened with presentations about the history of the “radar collaborative,” a description of the workshop objectives and focuses, and a summary of resource management and regulatory needs. Scientific presentations describing current research projects or subjects followed, given by USGS scientists, as well as scientists from other Federal agencies, academia, conservation and ornithological organizations, and a private contracting firm. Presenters addressed a wide variety of management issues including siting of wind-power facilities, bird/aircraft collisions, effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on bird migration, bird use of Conservation Reserve Program land, defining bird migration patterns at a broad regional scale, and associating migrant birds with their stopover habitats. Presentations described a variety of radar technologies including NEXRAD weather surveillance radar, modified mobile marine radar, military tracking radar, pencil beam radar, and dual polarization radar, as well as complementary techniques and analysis methods such as acoustic monitoring, thermal imaging, artificial intelligence, and individual-based modeling. Key issues, themes, and questions identified during the open discussions that followed fell into five main categories: (1) agency needs and challenges; (2) radar technology and applications—technical questions and issues; (3) tools and resources for managers and researchers; (4) standardization of protocols; and (5) collaborative opportunities. Participants identified the following management, regulatory, or business issues facing them which may be addressed with radar technologies: tall structures; wind turbines; identification and protection of key habitats; assessment of management activities; and bird/aircraft strikes. Participants frequently expressed the need for specific information about which radar technologies are best used for answering particular questions. User groups emphasized the importance of clear, defensible scientific information on which they can base their activities. In turn, researchers emphasized their need for clearly defined, specific questions from managers so that they can design and conduct the required research. Discussions about technical issues requiring further research and collaboration included target identity, ground-truthing, linking migrants to habitat, and standardized protocols for applied research. Workshop participants identified and endorsed a series of seven action items that would promote collaboration and begin to address key issues identified at the workshop: Action Item #1 : Establish a working subgroup to address large-scale surveillance radar standardization issues. Action Item #2 : Establish a working subgroup to address small-scale radar standardization issues. Action Item #3 : Bring management and regulatory agencies together to identify the three most important information needs for each key management issue relating to radar technologies. Action Item #4 : Develop Fact Sheet(s) to provide information about radar technology applications to migratory bird and bat conservation issues. Action Item #5 : Create a “radar collaborative” Website to provide information about radar biology applications, contacts, publications, and so forth. Action Item #6 : Formalize and expand the USGS-USFWS “radar collaborative.” Action Item #7 : Advance basic research, such as target identity and validation, which will support and improve our abilities to apply radar technologies to conservation objectives. There was considerable interest in expanding the “radar collaborative” to include those agencies, organizations, and industries represented at the workshop. It was felt that the publication of the workshop proceedings, implementation of action items, and additional future meetings or workshops will be crucial in strengthening the “radar collaborative” effort and promoting the use of these valuable technologies for conserving migratory species.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2026

Decision analysis of long-term research and monitoring investments for the Upper Mississippi River Restoration program

Congressional authorization of the Water Resource Development Act of 2020 increased funding for the Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) program and its Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) element. With adequate resources there is an opportunity for LTRM to expand its understanding of the Upper Mississippi River System, address unmet partner information needs, and better inform restoration and management of the Upper Mississippi River System. Additional information needs will need to be identified and prioritized in a manner that accounts for potential tradeoffs among the preferences of UMRR partners for long-term commitments of effort. In this report, we describe a decision analysis process used by UMRR partners to develop a comprehensive framework for prioritizing and selecting the information needs they would address in the event of changes in available resources. The partners of the UMRR formed a “planning team” with members representing the UMRR partner agencies to work through the decision analysis process. This team included two facilitators who led the decision analysis process. The planning team began this process by articulating a consensus understanding of the specific decisions to be made and identifying a set of decision outcomes (objectives) the UMRR partners wanted to achieve. Next, they identified information needs not being addressed by ongoing monitoring and research, developed criteria for assessing the expected benefit of addressing each information need, and estimated the costs of addressing each information need. They then used an optimization approach to identify the portfolio of information needs that would produce the most benefit for a given cost if they were effectively addressed. Originally, the planning team expected this analysis to inform a project plan that would start in 2024, but in recognition of financial uncertainties, we refer to planning dates as the number of years after resources become available (for example, “year 1,” “year 2,” and so on).

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin↗
USGS1976

Use of USGS earth-science products by county planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, ordinances, and other planning activities was made for eight counties in the San Francisco Bay region--a region of almost five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 87 earth-science information products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all eight counties had planning staffs who were very familiar with SFBRS products and had made frequent use of such products; (2) all eight counties had prepared planning documents which cite SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies, seismic safety and public safety plan elements, general reference, and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) over 90 percent of the 87 SFBRS products were used at least once, and nine of the products were used over 30 times each for various county planning activities; and (5) at least 85 other USGS products were also used for various county planning activities. After the inventory, selected county officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked--among other things--to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth-science information. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for working maps were 1:62,500 or larger and for plan implementation were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) only one county had a geologist on its planning staff, although six others had the benefit of geotechnical services from private consulting firms, county engineering staffs, or the State Division of Mines and Geology; (3) seven of the eight counties expressed some problems in using the products, primarily because of their small scale or lack of detail; (4) all eight counties expected to continue to use the products and expressed a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other information; (5) all eight counties suggested specific improvements to future products, primarily larger scale or more detail and fewer technical or more interpretive products; and (6) all eight counties received educational, advisory, and review services from USGS personnel. Seventeen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various county planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include four planning studies, seven plans, and two ordinances. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the counties in the Bay region are very familiar with, have made frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of county planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring emerging critical issues and analyzing new state and federal laws and regulations so as to better anticipate and respond to county earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and user needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development so as to husband staff resources; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by counties; (6) releasing earth-science information earlier and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1979

Use of U.S. Geological Survey earth-science products by selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) products in studies, plans, implementation, and other planning activities was made for seven selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region -- a region of over five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of over 100 earth-science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all seven agencies have staff members who are familiar with SFBRS products and make frequent use of them; (2) all seven agencies have prepared planning documents citing SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were water-quality and physical resources studies, potential site evaluation, and general reference; (4) almost 80 percent of the over 100 SFBRS products were used at least once, and eleven of the products were used 20 or more times each for various regional planning activities; and (5) at least 46 other USGS products were also used for various regional planning activities. During the inventory, over 50 regional agency. officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked -- among other things -- to indicate any problems they had noted in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any additional earth-science information needed or desired. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for "work" maps were 1:62,500 or larger, and for "implementation" maps were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) two agencies have a geologist on their planning staff, others have staff members with training or experience in earth-science or engineering, and all had the benefit of geotechnical services from outside their agency; (3) all seven agencies experienced some problems in using the products, primarily because the scale was too small or the detail not great enough; (4) all seven agencies expressed interest in the topical interpretive reports in preparation and a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other related information; (5) six of the seven agencies suggested specific improvements to future products -- primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretive information; and (6) all seven agencies received educational, advisory or review services from USGS personnel. Fifteen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various regional planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include six planning studies, five plans, two implementation activities, and two other types of activities. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the selected regional agencies in the bay region are familiar with, make frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of regional planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring and analyzing new State and Federal laws or regulations and emerging critical issues so as to anticipate and respond to regional earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by regional agencies; (6) releasing earth-science information faster and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

California↗
USGS2025

Clarifying the trophic state concept to advance macroscale freshwater science and management

For over a century, ecologists have used the concept of trophic state (TS) to characterize an aquatic ecosystem's biological productivity. However, multiple TS classification schemes, each relying on a variety of measurable parameters as proxies for productivity, have emerged to meet use-specific needs. Frequently, chlorophyll a, phosphorus, and Secchi depth are used to classify TS based on autotrophic production, whereas phosphorus, dissolved organic carbon, and true color are used to classify TS based on both autotrophic and heterotrophic production. Both classification approaches aim to characterize an ecosystem's function broadly, but with varying degrees of autotrophic and heterotrophic processes considered in those characterizations. Moreover, differing classification schemes can create inconsistent interpretations of ecosystem integrity. For example, the US Clean Water Act focuses exclusively on algal threats to water quality, framed in terms of eutrophication in response to nutrient loading. This usage lacks information about non-algal threats to water quality, such as dystrophication in response to dissolved organic carbon loading. Consequently, the TS classification schemes used to identify eutrophication and dystrophication may refer to ecosystems similarly (e.g., oligotrophic and eutrophic), yet these categories are derived from different proxies. These inconsistencies in TS classification schemes may be compounded when interdisciplinary projects employ varied TS frameworks. Even with these shortcomings, TS can still be used to distill information on complex aquatic ecosystem function into a set of generalizable expectations. The usefulness of distilling complex information into a TS index is substantial such that usage inconsistencies should be explicitly addressed and resolved. To emphasize the consequences of diverging TS classification schemes, we present three case studies for which an improved understanding of the TS concept advances freshwater research, management efforts, and interdisciplinary collaboration. To increase clarity in TS, the aquatic sciences could benefit from including information about the proxy variables, ecosystem type, as well as the spatiotemporal domains used to classify TS. As the field of aquatic sciences expands and climatic irregularity increases, we highlight the importance of re-evaluating fundamental concepts, such as TS, to ensure their compatibility with evolving science.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2005

The World Coal Quality Inventory: A status report

National and international policy makers and industry require accurate information on coal, including coal quality data, to make informed decisions regarding international import needs and export opportunities, foreign policy, technology transfer policies, foreign investment prospects, environmental and health assessments, and byproduct use and disposal issues. Unfortunately, the information needed is generally proprietary and does not exist in the public domain. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in conjunction with partners in about 60 countries, is developing a digital compilation of worldwide coal quality. The World Coal Quality Inventory (WoCQI) will contain coal quality information for samples obtained from major coal beds in countries having significant coal production, as well as from many countries producing smaller volumes of coal, with an emphasis on coals currently being burned. The information that will be incorporated includes, but is not limited to, proximate and ultimate analyses; sulfur-form data; major, minor, and trace element analysis; and semi-quantitative analyses of minerals, modes of occurrence, and petrography. The coal quality information will eventually be linked to a Geographic Information System (GIS) that shows the coal basins and sample locations along with geologic, land use, transportation, industrial, and cultural information. The WoCQI will be accessible on the USGS web page and new data added periodically. This multi-national collaboration is developing global coal quality data that contain a broad array of technologic, economic, and environmental parameters, which should help to ensure the efficient and environmentally compatible use of global coal resources in the 21st century.

International Journal of Coal Geology↗
USGS2020

Anticipating future learning affects current control decisions: A comparison between passive and active adaptive management in an epidemiological setting

Infectious disease epidemics present a difficult task for policymakers, requiring the implementation of control strategies under significant time constraints and uncertainty. Mathematical models can be used to predict the outcome of control interventions, providing useful information to policymakers in the event of such an epidemic. However, these models suffer in the early stages of an outbreak from a lack of accurate, relevant information regarding the dynamics and spread of the disease and the efficacy of control. As such, recommendations provided by these models are often incorporated in an ad hoc fashion, as and when more reliable information becomes available. In this work, we show that such trial-and-error-type approaches to management, which do not formally take into account the resolution of uncertainty and how control actions affect this, can lead to sub-optimal management outcomes. We compare three approaches to managing a theoretical epidemic: a non-adaptive management (AM) approach that does not use real-time outbreak information to adapt control, a passive AM approach that incorporates real-time information if and when it becomes available, and an active AM approach that explicitly incorporates the future resolution of uncertainty through gathering real-time information into its initial recommendations. The structured framework of active AM encourages the specification of quantifiable objectives, models of system behaviour and possible control and monitoring actions, followed by an iterative learning and control phase that is able to employ complex control optimisations and resolve system uncertainty. The result is a management framework that is able to provide dynamic, long-term projections to help policymakers meet the objectives of management. We investigate in detail the effect of different methods of incorporating up-to-date outbreak information. We find that, even in a highly simplified system, the method of incorporating new data can lead to different results that may influence initial policy decisions, with an active AM approach to management providing better information that can lead to more desirable outcomes from an epidemic.

Journal of Theoretical Biology↗