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 1,423 records · Page 79Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Strength and memory of precipitation's control over streamflow across the conterminous United States

How precipitation (P) is translated into streamflow (Q) and over what timescales (i.e., “memory”) is difficult to predict without calibration of site-specific models or using geochemical approaches, posing barriers to prediction in ungauged basins or advancement of general theories. Here, we used a data-driven approach to identify regional patterns and exogenous controls on P–Q interactions. We applied an information flow analysis, which quantifies uncertainty reduction, to a daily time series of P and Q from 671 watersheds across the conterminous United States. We first demonstrated that information transfer from P to Q primarily reflects the quickflow component of water-budgets, based on a watershed model. Readily quantifiable information flows show a functional relationship with model parameters, suggesting utility for model calibration. Second, applied to real watersheds, P–Q information flows exhibit seasonally varying behavior within regions in a manner consistent with dominant runoff generation mechanisms. However, the timing and the magnitude of information flows also reflect considerable subregional heterogeneity, likely attributable to differences in watershed size, baseflow contributions, and variation in aerial coverage of preferential flow paths. A regression analysis showed that a combination of climate and watershed characteristics are predictive of P–Q information flows. Though information flows cannot, in most cases, uniquely determine dominant runoff mechanisms, they provide a means to quantify the heterogeneous outcomes of those mechanisms within regions, thereby serving as a benchmarking tool for models developed at the regional scale. Last, information flows characterize regionally specific ways in which catchment connectivity changes from the wet to dry season.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2019

Inversion of airborne EM data with an explicit choice of prior model

Inversion of airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data is an under-determined inverse problem, in that infinitely many resistivity models exist that will be able to explain the observed data, within measurement errors. Therefore, additional information or constraints must be taken into account to solve the inverse problem. In deterministic approaches, the goal is to locate one optimal model that can be obtained by using some form of smoothness constraints implied through a number of regularization choices. This model, however, will not necessarily represent realistic geological features. Probabilistic methods offer an alternative in which the solution is not one model, but a collection of models, whose variability represents the uncertainty. The probabilistic approach can also rely on implicit model assumptions, representing prior information (a type of regularization information) that may or may not be consistent with the actual available information. Here, we present an approach for AEM inversion in which the prior model is explicitly chosen by a user, preferably selected based on actual prior information available and then integrated with AEM data using a general Monte Carlo based sampling approach. This approach leads to a new workflow to AEM inversion in which geological prior information is independently and explicitly chosen before inversion is carried out. The main benefit of this approach is that each model obtained will, by construction, be consistent with prior (geological) information as well as geophysical data. Through examples based on synthetic and real AEM data, we will demonstrate the methodology, not least that the choice of prior information cannot be avoided: Either it is done explicitly, or it will be chosen implicitly by the choice of method used to invert the AEM data.

Geophysical Journal International↗
USGS2013

Meeting the Science Needs of the Nation in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy-- A U.S. Geological Survey Science Plan for Support of Restoration and Recovery

n late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy came ashore during a spring high tide on the New Jersey coastline, delivering hurricane-force winds, storm tides exceeding 19 feet, driving rain, and plummeting temperatures. Hurricane Sandy resulted in 72 direct fatalities in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States, and widespread and substantial physical, environmental, ecological, social, and economic impacts estimated at near $50 billion. Before the landfall of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS provided forecasts of potential coastal change; collected oblique aerial photography of pre-storm coastal morphology; deployed storm-surge sensors, rapid-deployment streamgages, wave sensors, and barometric pressure sensors; conducted Light Detection And Ranging (lidar) aerial topographic surveys of coastal areas; and issued a landslide alert for landslide prone areas. During the storm, Tidal Telemetry Networks provided real-time water-level information along the coast. Long-term network and rapid-deployment real-time streamgages and water-quality monitors reported on river levels and changes in water quality. Immediately after the storm, the USGS serviced real-time instrumentation, retrieved data from over 140 storm-surge sensors, and collected other essential environmental data, including more than 830 high-water marks mapping the extent and elevation of the storm surge. Post-storm lidar surveys documented storm impacts to coastal barriers informing response and recovery and providing a new baseline to assess vulnerability of the reconfigured coast. The USGS Hazard Data Distribution System served storm related information from many agencies on the Internet on a daily basis. This science plan was developed immediately following Hurricane Sandy to coordinate continuing USGS activities with other agencies and to guide continued data collection and analysis to ensure support for recovery and restoration efforts. The data, information, and tools that are produced by implementing this plan will: (1) further characterize impacts and changes, (2) guide mitigation and restoration of impacted communities and ecosystems, (3) inform a redevelopment strategy aimed at developing resilient coastal communities and ecosystems, (4) improve preparedness and responsiveness to the next hurricane or similar coastal disaster, and (5) enable improved hazard assessment, response, and recovery for future storms along the hurricane prone shoreline of the United States. The activities outlined in this plan are organized in five themes based on impact types and information needs. These USGS science themes are: Theme 1: Coastal topography and bathymetry. Theme 2: Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers. Theme 3: Impacts of storm surge and estuarine and bay hydrology. Theme 4: Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures. Theme 5: Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife. A major emphasis in the implementation of this plan will be on interacting with stakeholders to better understand their specific data and information needs, to define the best way to make information available, and to support applications of USGS science and expertise to decisionmaking.

Connecticut;Delaware;Maine;Maryl;Massachusetts;New↗
USGS2005

Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides information to the public and to policy-makers concerning the current use and flow of minerals and materials in the United States economy. The USGS collects, analyzes, and disseminates minerals information on most nonfuel mineral commodities. This USGS digital database is an online compilation of historical U.S. statistics on mineral and material commodities. The database contains information on approximately 90 mineral commodities, including production, imports, exports, and stocks; reported and apparent consumption; and unit value (the real and nominal price in U.S. dollars of a metric ton of apparent consumption). For many of the commodities, data are reported as far back as 1900. Each commodity file includes a document that describes the units of measure, defines terms, and lists USGS contacts for additional information. End-use tables complement these statistics by supplying, for most of these commodities, information about the distribution of apparent consumption. This publication draws on more than 125 years of minerals information experience. At the request of the 47th Congress of the United States (1882; 22 Stat. 329), the U.S. Government began the collection and public distribution of these types of data. The Federal agencies responsible for the collection of the data have changed through time. For the years 1882-1924, the USGS collected and published these data; the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) performed these tasks from 1925-95; and in 1996, the responsibilities once again passed to the USGS (following the closure of the USBM) (Mlynarski, 1998). The USGS collects data on a monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual basis from more than 18,000 minerals-related producer and consumer establishments that cooperate with the USGS. These companies voluntarily complete about 40,000 canvass forms that survey production, consumption, recycling, stocks, shipments, and other essential information. Data are also gathered from site visits, memberships on domestic and international minerals-related committees, and coordination with other government organizations and trade associations. The USGS makes this information available through published products, including monthly, quarterly, and annual Mineral Industry Surveys, the annual Minerals Yearbook (MYB), the annual Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS), and special mineral commodity studies, including the history of metal prices and materials flow studies.

Data Series↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Cumberland County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Cumberland County, documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Cumberland County, Maine is 21 years. Most of these studies were in the early to mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-25 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Cumberland County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Cumberland County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how effective FIS data can be used in new project, and identify other data needed to

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Kennebec County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Kennebec County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Kennebec County, Maine is 16 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Kennebec County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Kennebec County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how e

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Somerset County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Somerset County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Somerset County, Maine is 18.1 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Somerset County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Somerset County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and ho

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

World Map Showing Surface and Subsurface Distribution, and Lithologic Character of Middle and Late Neoproterozoic Rocks

INTRODUCTION The map was prepared to outline the basic information on where Neoproterozoic rocks are present in the World, and of the lithologic character of these rocks. The information provides a better understanding of major Neoproterozoic tectonic subdivisions useful in paleogeographic and plate tectonic reconstructions. The time frame of the map is within the middle and late Neoproterozoic from approximately 870 to 540 Ma and is after widespread Mesoproterozoic Grenville-age collisional events that are considered to have formed the hypothetical supercontinent of Rodinia. Much of the time represented by the map is interpreted to be during the fragmentation of Rodinia. The recognition of Neoproterozoic rocks is commonly difficult because of limited isotopic or paloeontological dating. Thus, some rocks shown on the map could be older or younger than the age indicated. However, at the scale of the map the the problem may be minor. Enough information seems to be available to indicate the general age of the rocks. Many of the successions contain diamictite deposits considered to be glaciogenic and dated as middle or late Neoproterozoic. These deposits thus show a rough correlation of middle and late Neoproterozoic rocks of the world. The map is a Richardson map projection, except for Antarctica which is a polar projection. The map was prepared from about 650 references, shown in the text linked below under 'Sources of Information', used to outline distribution patterns, determine rock types, and provide information on the regional and local geologic framework of the rocks. The focus of the references is on the geologic information needed to prepare the map. Other information, such as plate tectonic reconstructions or paleomagnetic studies is generally not included. The 'Sources of Information' lists references alphabetically for each of 14 regions. In brackets is a code for each area. These codes provide help in locating the specific regions in the references.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

A Science Plan for a Comprehensive Regional Assessment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Maryland

The Maryland Coastal Plain region is, at present, largely dependent upon ground water for its water supply. Decades of increasing pumpage have caused ground-water levels in parts of the Maryland Coastal Plain to decline by as much as 2 feet per year in some areas of southern Maryland. Continued declines at this rate could affect the long-term sustainability of ground-water resources in Maryland's heavily populated Coastal Plain communities and the agricultural industry of the Eastern Shore. In response to a recommendation in 2004 by the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State's Water Resources, the Maryland Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey have developed a science plan for a comprehensive assessment that will provide new scientific information and new data management and analysis tools for the State to use in allocating ground water in the Coastal Plain. The comprehensive assessment has five goals aimed at improving the current information and tools used to understand the resource potential of the aquifer system: (1) document the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer system in the Maryland Coastal Plain and appropriate areas of adjacent states; (2) conduct detailed studies of the regional ground-water-flow system and water budget for the aquifer system; (3) improve documentation of patterns of water quality in all Coastal Plain aquifers, including the distribution of saltwater; (4) enhance ground-water-level, streamflow, and water-quality-monitoring networks in the Maryland Coastal Plain; and (5) develop science-based tools to facilitate sound management of the ground-water resources in the Maryland Coastal Plain. The assessment, as designed, will be conducted in three phases and if fully implemented, is expected to take 7 to 8 years to complete. Phase I, which was initiated in January 2006, is an effort to assemble all the information and investigation tools needed to do a more comprehensive assessment of the aquifer system. The work will include updating the hydrogeologic framework, developing a Geographic Information System-based aquifer information system, refinement of water-use information, assessment of existing water-quality data, and development of detailed plans for ground-water-flow and management models. Phase II is an intensive study phase during which a regional ground-water-flow model will be developed and calibrated for the entire region of Maryland in the Atlantic Coastal Plain as well as appropriate areas of Delaware and Virginia. The model will be used to simulate flow and water levels in the aquifer system and to study the water budget of the system. The model analysis will be based on published information but will be supplemented with field investigations of recharge and leakage in the aquifer system. Localized and finely discretized ground-water-flow models that are embedded in the regional model will be developed for selected areas of heavy withdrawals. Other modeling studies will be conducted to better understand flow in the unconfined parts of the aquifer system and to support the recharge studies. Phase II will also include selected water-quality studies and a study to determine how hydrologic and water-quality-monitoring networks need to be enhanced to appropriately assess the sustainability of the Coastal Plain aquifer system. Phase III will be largely devoted to the development and application of a ground-water optimization model. This model will be linked to the ground-water-flow model to create a model package that can be used to test different water-management scenarios. The management criteria that will be used to develop these scenarios will be determined in consultation with a variety of state and local stakeholders and policy makers in Phases I and II of the assessment. The development of the aquifer information system is a key component of the assessment. The system will store all relevant aquifer data

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Methods for Monitoring Fish Communities of Buffalo National River and Ozark National Scenic Riverways in the Ozark Plateaus of Arkansas and Missouri: Version 1.0

Buffalo National River located in north-central Arkansas, and Ozark National Scenic Riverways, located in southeastern Missouri, are the two largest units of the National Park Service in the Ozark Plateaus physiographic province. The purpose of this report is to provide a protocol that will be used by the National Park Service to sample fish communities and collect related water-quality, habitat, and stream discharge data of Buffalo National River and Ozark National Scenic Riverways to meet inventory and long-term monitoring objectives. The protocol includes (1) a protocol narrative, (2) several standard operating procedures, and (3) supplemental information helpful for implementation of the protocol. The protocol narrative provides background information about the protocol such as the rationale of why a particular resource or resource issue was selected for monitoring, information concerning the resource or resource issue of interest, a description of how monitoring results will inform management decisions, and a discussion of the linkages between this and other monitoring projects. The standard operating procedures cover preparation, training, reach selection, water-quality sampling, fish community sampling, physical habitat collection, measuring stream discharge, equipment maintenance and storage, data management and analysis, reporting, and protocol revision procedures. Much of the information in the standard operating procedures was gathered from existing protocols of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment program or other sources. Supplemental information that would be helpful for implementing the protocol is included. This information includes information on fish species known or suspected to occur in the parks, sample sites, sample design, fish species traits, index of biotic integrity metrics, sampling equipment, and field forms.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

NBII-SAIN Data Management Toolkit

The Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Informatics Program (2005-2009) recognizes the need for effective data management: Though the Federal government invests more than $600 million per year in biological data collection, it is difficult to address these issues because of limited accessibility and lack of standards for data and information...variable quality, sources, methods, and formats (for example observations in the field, museum specimens, and satellite images) present additional challenges. This is further complicated by the fast-moving target of emerging and changing technologies such as GPS and GIS. Even though these technologies offer new solutions, they also create new informatics challenges (Ruggiero and others, 2005). The USGS National Biological Information Infrastructure program, hereafter referred to as NBII, is charged with the mission to improve the way data and information are gathered, documented, stored, and accessed. The central objective of this project is a direct reflection of the purpose of NBII as described by John Mosesso, Program Manager of the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Informatics Program-GAP Analysis: At the outset, the reason for bringing about NBII was that there were significant amounts of data and information scattered all over the U.S., not accessible, in incompatible formats, and that NBII was tasked with addressing this problem...NBII's focus is to pull data together that truly matters to someone or communities. Essentially, the core questions are: 1) what are the issues, 2) where is the data, and 3) how can we make it usable and accessible (John Mosesso, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2006). Redundancy in data collection can be a major issue when multiple stakeholders are involved with a common effort. In 2001 the U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) estimated that about 50 percent of the Federal government's geospatial data at the time was redundant. In addition, approximately 80 percent of the cost of a spatial information system is associated with spatial data collection and management (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). These figures indicate that the resources (time, personnel, money) of many agencies and organizations could be used more efficiently and effectively. Dedicated and conscientious data management coordination and documentation is critical for reducing such redundancy. Substantial cost savings and increased efficiency are direct results of a pro-active data management approach. In addition, details of projects as well as data and information are frequently lost as a result of real-world occurrences such as the passing of time, job turnover, and equipment changes and failure. A standardized, well documented database allows resource managers to identify issues, analyze options, and ultimately make better decisions in the context of adaptive management (National Land and Water Resources Audit and the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council on behalf of the Australian National Government, 2003). Many environmentally focused, scientific, or natural resource management organizations collect and create both spatial and non-spatial data in some form. Data management appropriate for those data will be contingent upon the project goal(s) and objectives and thus will vary on a case-by-case basis. This project and the resulting Data Management Toolkit, hereafter referred to as the Toolkit, is therefore not intended to be comprehensive in terms of addressing all of the data management needs of all projects that contain biological, geospatial, and other types of data. The Toolkit emphasizes the idea of connecting a project's data and the related management needs to the defined project goals and objectives from the outset. In that context, the Toolkit presents and describes the fundamental components of sound data and information management that are common to projects involving biological, geospatial, and other related data

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Sediment-hosted zinc-lead deposits of the world— Database and grade and tonnage models

This report provides information on sediment-hosted zinc-lead mineral deposits based on the geologic settings that are observed on regional geologic maps. The foundation of mineral-deposit models is information about known deposits. The purpose of this publication is to make this kind of information available in digital form for sediment-hosted zinc-lead deposits. Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative resource assessments: Grades and tonnages among deposit types are significantly different, and many types occur in different geologic settings that can be identified from geologic maps. Mineral-deposit models are the keystone in combining the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. Too few thoroughly explored mineral deposits are available in most local areas for reliable identification of the important geoscience variables, or for robust estimation of undiscovered deposits - thus, we need mineral-deposit models. Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features because the global models demonstrate how common different features are. Well-designed and -constructed deposit models allow geologists to know from observed geologic environments the possible mineral-deposit types that might exist, and allow economists to determine the possible economic viability of these resources in the region. Thus, mineral-deposit models play the central role in transforming geoscience information to a form useful to policy makers. This publication contains a computer file of information on sediment-hosted zinc-lead deposits from around the world. It also presents new grade and tonnage models for nine types of these deposits and a file allowing locations of all deposits to be plotted in Google Earth. The data are presented in FileMaker Pro, Excel and text files to make the information available to as many as possible. 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 applied in this compilation. Next, the fields of the data file are considered. Finally, we provide new grade and tonnage models that are, for the most part, based on a classification of deposits using observable geologic units from regional-scaled maps.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1981

Western hemisphere strong-motion accelerograph station list, 1980

This list contains information on western hemisphere strong-motion stations that have been installed and are maintained by many different organizations. It contains information on all of those stations for which there is some data in the files of the USGS, but the list is incomplete even for stations in the United States. Since the stations being maintained are continuously changing, it is impossible to have complete information about all of the stations at any one time. The objective is to provide the community of persons who have an interest in strong-motion programs an indication of the current status of the networks in this part of the world. The USGS also maintains a computerized Strong Motion Information Retrieval System (SMIRS) which permits searching for various types of information about the strong motion stations, records, and events (Converse, 1978). In general, the information in SMIRS is more current than the information in this list. For convenience, the list has been arranged by country, north to south, alphabetically by states in the section for the United States, and then alphabetically by station name. Subsequent sections include a list by stations numbers, a cross-reference of obsolete station names, a cross-reference of station numbers as assigned by other agencies, and a cross-reference of three character designations for those that find that form of station designation useful. A list of the stations that were installed as required by a local building code or that are maintained by the owner of the facility appears in the Appendix. That list has not been updated since 1976 at which time the USGS stopped receiving information about new installations required by building codes.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1996

City of Flagstaff Project: Ground Water Resource Evaluation, Remote Sensing Component

Many regions, cities, and towns in the Western United States need new or expanded water resources because of both population growth and increased development. Any tools or data that can help in the evaluation of an area's potential water resources must be considered for this increasingly critical need. Remotely sensed satellite images and subsequent digital image processing have been under-utilized in ground water resource evaluation and exploration. Satellite images can be helpful in detecting and mapping an area's regional structural patterns, including major fracture and fault systems, two important geologic settings for an area's surface to ground water relations. Within the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Flagstaff Field Center, expertise and capabilities in remote sensing and digital image processing have been developed over the past 25 years through various programs. For the City of Flagstaff project, this expertise and these capabilities were combined with traditional geologic field mapping to help evaluate ground water resources in the Flagstaff area. Various enhancement and manipulation procedures were applied to the digital satellite images; the results, in both digital and hardcopy format, were used for field mapping and analyzing the regional structure. Relative to surface sampling, remotely sensed satellite and airborne images have improved spatial coverage that can help study, map, and monitor the earth surface at local and/or regional scales. Advantages offered by remotely sensed satellite image data include: 1. a synoptic/regional view compared to both aerial photographs and ground sampling, 2. cost effectiveness, 3. high spatial resolution and coverage compared to ground sampling, and 4. relatively high temporal coverage on a long term basis. Remotely sensed images contain both spectral and spatial information. The spectral information provides various properties and characteristics about the surface cover at a given location or pixel (that is, vegetation and/or soil type). The spatial information gives the distribution, variation, and topographic relief of the cover types from pixel to pixel. Therefore, the main characteristics that determine a pixel's brightness/reflectance and, consequently, the digital number (DN) assigned to the pixel, are the physical properties of the surface and near surface, the cover type, and the topographic slope. In this application, the ability to detect and map lineaments, especially those related to fractures and faults, is critical. Therefore, the extraction of spatial information from the digital images was of prime interest in this project. The spatial information varies among the different spectral bands available; in particular, a near infrared spectral band is better than a visible band when extracting spatial information in highly vegetated areas. In this study, both visible and near infrared bands were analyzed and used to extract the desired spatial information from the images. The wide swath coverage of remotely sensed satellite digital images makes them ideal for regional analysis and mapping. Since locating and mapping highly fractured and faulted areas is a major requirement for ground water resource evaluation and exploration this aspect of satellite images was considered critical; it allowed us to stand back (actually up about 440 miles), look at, and map the regional structural setting of the area. The main focus of the remote sensing and digital image processing component of this project was to use both remotely sensed digital satellite images and a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to extract spatial information related to the structural and topographic patterns in the area. The data types used were digital satellite images collected by the United States' Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and French Systeme Probatoire d'Observation de laTerre (SPOT) imaging systems, along with a DEM of the Flagstaff region. The USGS Mini Image Processing Sy

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—Water resources

The Williston Basin has been a leading oil and gas producing area for more than 50 years. While oil production initially peaked within the Williston Basin in the mid-1980s, production rapidly increased in the mid-2000s, largely because of improved horizontal (directional) drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods. In 2012, energy development associated with the Bakken Formation was identified as a priority requiring collaboration toward improved timeliness of issuing permits for new wells combined with reasonable measures to maintain environmental quality. Shortly thereafter, the Bakken Federal Executive Group was created to address common challenges associated with energy development. The Bakken Federal Executive Group partner agencies identified a gap in current understanding of the cumulative environmental challenges attributed to energy development throughout the area, resulting in an effort to aggregate scientific data and identify additional research and information needs related to natural resources within areas of energy development in the Williston Basin. As part of this effort, water resources in the area (including groundwater; streams and rivers; and lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands) were characterized and described in terms of physical occurrence, flow characteristics, recharge, water quality, and water use. Similarly, waters produced during energy-development activities also were characterized even though these waters are not considered usable resources within the area. Groundwater resources were characterized by the major hydrogeologic units, or aquifers, identifying the units that supply most groundwater used for domestic, stock, agricultural, and industrial purposes. The groundwater characterization included other deeper hydrogeologic units in the Williston Basin that may be a useable source of water with treatment, have utility as a reservoir for reinjection of produced waters, or be a source of minerals and energy resources. A generalized groundwater budget and flow system identifying the sources of recharge (stream infiltration, precipitation, and movement [leakage] from other aquifers) and the general groundwater flow direction is included for each of the major hydrogeologic units. Rivers and streams within the Williston Basin with 10 or more years of continuous streamflow data were identified. For a subset of these sites, streamflow characteristics, including the monthly and annual mean flow, were generated to identify seasonal and interannual changes in streamflow and thus provide information on the drivers and reliability of streamflow at the seasonal or multiyear scale. Daily streamflow and annual extreme flows (peak and low flow) also were estimated for the subset of sites. The daily streamflow and annual extreme flow values provide information on short-term or extreme events that are relevant to infrastructure design and evaluating spills, leaks, or accidental discharges of water or petroleum products. Surface-water features (lakes, ponds, and wetlands) were classified using the Cowardin system and identified on the National Wetlands Inventory maps generated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The spatial distribution of the surface-water features was analyzed by State, county, and specifically in comparison to the Prairie Pothole Region. The proximity of the surface-water features to energy development infrastructure (specifically oil or gas well pads) was evaluated. It was determined that, although oil or gas wells are often near a surface-water feature, most surface-water features do not have wells nearby, with the exception of wells in the Prairie Pothole Region. Water-quality data were aggregated from two data sources: (1) the Water-Quality Portal, sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Water Quality Monitoring Council; and (2) a data compilation completed as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment project. The Water-Quality Portal integrates publicly available water-quality data from databases maintained by the USGS, EPA, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, including water-quality data from Tribal, State, and local databases. Water-quality data for 15 commonly measured water-quality constituents were aggregated for groundwater, rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs. For each aggregated dataset (groundwater, rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs), analyses of the water-quality data included summary statistics, maps of spatial distribution of constituent values, boxplots of constituent values by timeframe or hydrogeologic unit, spatial comparisons of site locations and constituent values to petroleum well density, and comparisons of the constituent values measured to EPA drinking-water standards/guidelines. Produced water includes all fluids brought to the surface along with the targeted hydrocarbons as part of the oil and gas exploration and extraction processes. These fluids may include formation water (waters that co-exist with rock/oil/gas), hydraulic fracturing fluids, and other combinations of water and chemicals used during oil and gas well drilling, development, treatments, recompletions, and workovers. Produced water datasets were aggregated from two sources: the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical database (ver. 2.1) and a series of projects focused specifically on sampling produced water in the Williston Basin from 2010 to 2014. The National Produced Waters Geochemical database was useful for a general understanding of produced-water chemistry. Produced waters are characterized by extreme salinity and contain elevated concentrations of other constituents (including arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, zinc, radium-226/radium-228, and ammonium) that could negatively affect water and aquatic resources if released. Produced waters also have a generally unique chemical (isotopic) signature that may be useful in tracking water from different geologic units; for example, the oxygen/deuterium and strontium ratio values measured in brine waters from the Bakken Formation are distinct from brines collected from other geologic units in the Williston Basin. Water-use information related to energy production in the area also was aggregated and summarized. The summary of water use is not limited to oil and gas production but includes water used to produce all types of energy resources in the Williston Basin, including coal/lignite, thermoelectric power, oil and gas, hydropower, biomass and biofuels, wind, geothermal, and solar. Each State has its own methods for regulating and reporting water usage within its jurisdiction. These methods can introduce problems when examining water use from sources, such as the Missouri River or Fox Hills aquifer, that are shared across political boundaries. Without the one-to-one match for usage types and amounts used from a water source, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive water budget for the water source being evaluated. A large amount of freshwater is required to prepare a well for oil and gas well production; in some cases, 3 to 7 million gallons of water are needed per well. The EPA estimates that hydraulic fracturing in the Williston Basin uses between 70 to 140 billion gallons per year. Water also is used for myriad other purposes related to ancillary oil and gas extraction. In addition to water used for immediate energy development, the expanded human workforce migrating into the area and other support staff who have moved into the area during the development also use water. Research and information needs were identified that could be relevant in the evaluation of the effects of energy development on water resources. Information needs related to the evaluation of groundwater resources include the following: improved potentiometric-surface maps for glacial units; availability of a uniform stream network digital geographic coverage that spans the international boundary with Canada; enhanced surface-water use information with regards to the gain and loss of streamflow to shallow groundwater, which would increase understanding groundwater and surface-water interactions; and expanded geophysical assessments. Gaps in the availability of streamflow data include the lack of information on ice-jam flooding despite potential for effects to infrastructure (pipelines, roads, and facilities) and an understanding of the cumulative effects of largely undocumented stock and diversion dams. Although this study resulted in the aggregation of a large quantity of water-quality data, the availability of consistently collected, systematically processed and reported data over large parts of the Williston Basin is sparse. Few samples have been analyzed for constituents that may indicate the effect of energy development on water resources. Constituents that could be considered include boron, chloride, bromide, iodine, fluoride, manganese, lithium, radium, strontium isotopes, volatile organic compounds, and isotopes of inorganic ions (such as hydrogen and carbon). Collaboration between Tribal, Federal, State, and local entities to identify a common study design, common monitoring constituents, and consistent sampling locations would generate datasets with broad utility and would likely result in overall cost savings for monitoring over time. Similarly, there is a need for standardized sample collection, processing, laboratory analytical methods, and the collection of ancillary data for produced waters sampling. Additional characterization of the range of chemical, microbial, and isotopic compositions and quantities of “end-member” produced waters, and the collection of time-series datasets to document the changes in produced waters during and after well development also were needs identified during this study. Water-use estimates would be improved through the implementation of comprehensive studies of water use from groundwater and surface-water sources using consistent methodologies across the Williston Basin. The submission of chemical and water data related to hydraulic fracturing collected by the oil and gas industry would add to the quantity of available data. Consistent implementation of regulations and monitoring controls across political boundaries (State, county, and international) would further improve the consistency of data available for the estimates of water use.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2022

2021 assessment of the Joint Fire Science Program’s Fire Science Exchange Network

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), on behalf of the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP), conducted an evaluation of the Fire Science Exchange Network (FSEN), which connects wildland fire scientists and practitioners through 15 individual exchanges across the United States to help address complex wildfire needs and challenges. The study was divided into two phases: The first phase was a literature review and synthesis from materials provided by the JFSP Board. Phase two, informed by the JFSP review, was an online survey sent to more than 16,000 exchange network users compiled from the electronic mailing lists for each exchange. Respondents were asked their opinions on the importance, quality, and delivery of information for 16 key fire science topics, the prioritization of FSEN objectives, and from where and to what extent respondents are gathering information on key topics. Overall, respondents believed that sharing information and building relationships are the most important objectives of the FSEN. Respondents believed the exchange network is successful in delivering information for many of the key science topics (for example, fire behavior, prescribed fire, firefighter safety, and incident management); gaps were identified in scientific resources available for some topics (for example, economic impacts, social science and human dimensions, Indigenous knowledge). Most respondents participated in one to two exchanges and relied heavily on their respondent location (the exchange in which they primarily live and [or] work) for information. Respondents also often relied on external sources outside of the exchange network. Regional patterns emerged in information gathering whereby respondents from exchanges in the western United States (for example, Northern Rockies, Southern Rockies, and Northwest) and respondents from exchanges in the eastern United States (for example, Southern, Oak Woodlands, and Tallgrass) frequently gathered information from each other.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2003

Estimated flood-inundation maps for Cowskin Creek in western Wichita, Kansas

The October 31, 1998, flood on Cowskin Creek in western Wichita, Kansas, caused millions of dollars in damages. Emergency management personnel and flood mitigation teams had difficulty in efficiently identifying areas affected by the flooding, and no warning was given to residents because flood-inundation information was not available. To provide detailed information about future flooding on Cowskin Creek, high-resolution estimated flood-inundation maps were developed using geographic information system technology and advanced hydraulic analysis. Two-foot-interval land-surface elevation data from a 1996 flood insurance study were used to create a three-dimensional topographic representation of the study area for hydraulic analysis. The data computed from the hydraulic analyses were converted into geographic information system format with software from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center. The results were overlaid on the three-dimensional topographic representation of the study area to produce maps of estimated flood-inundation areas and estimated depths of water in the inundated areas for 1-foot increments on the basis of stream stage at an index streamflow-gaging station. A Web site (http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/cowskin.floodwatch) was developed to provide the public with information pertaining to flooding in the study area. The Web site shows graphs of the real-time streamflow data for U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations in the area and monitors the National Weather Service Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center for Cowskin Creek flood-forecast information. When a flood is forecast for the Cowskin Creek Basin, an estimated flood-inundation map is displayed for the stream stage closest to the National Weather Service's forecasted peak stage. Users of the Web site are able to view the estimated flood-inundation maps for selected stages at any time and to access information about this report and about flooding in general. Flood recovery teams also have the ability to view the estimated flood-inundation map pertaining to the most recent flood. The availability of these maps and the ability to monitor the real-time stream stage through the U.S. Geological Survey Web site provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for evacuation and rescue efforts in the event of a flood as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗