USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Special Technical Publication”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2003

Digital mapping techniques '03 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '03 (DMT'03) workshop was attended by nearly 90 technical experts from 36 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). Although the meeting was slightly smaller than DMT'02 it was, considering the budget deficits in nearly all 50 states, very well attended. This workshop was similar in nature to the previous six meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), and in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002). This year's meeting was hosted by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, from June 1-4, 2003, on the Millersville University campus in Millersville, Pennsylvania. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and <http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/ standards/datacapt/>). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database— and the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2003 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) digital cartographic techniques, 3) analytical GIS techniques; 4) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 5) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language, and 6) the need to archive both the published products and the data and observational data that support it.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2004

Digital mapping techniques '04, workshop proceedings : May 16-19, 2004, Portland, Oregon

The Digital Mapping Techniques ‘04 (DMT’04) workshop was attended by about 100 technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous seven meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), and in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003). This year’s meeting was hosted by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, from May 16–19, 2004, on the Portland State University campus in Portland, Oregon. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, Berg, and Stamm, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/ ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the National database—and for the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2004 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, “publishing” includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1978

Water resources of the northern Uinta Basin area, Utah and Colorado, with special emphasis on ground water supply

The northern Uinta Basin area covers about 5,200 square miles (13,470 square kilometers) in northeastern Utah and northwestern Colorado. Much of the lowlands are arid to semiarid, but the highest parts of the Uinta Mountains have a humid climate. During 1941-70, the average annual precipitation ranged from less than 8 inches (203 millimeters) in the lowest part of the area at the Green River to more than 38 inches (965 millimeters) in the high west-central Uinta Mountains.

Colorado, Utah↗
USGS2005

Digital Mapping Techniques '05--Workshop Proceedings, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 24-27, 2005

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '05 (DMT'05) workshop was attended by more than 100 technical experts from 47 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous eight meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), in Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), and in Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004). This year's meeting was hosted by the Louisiana Geological Survey, from April 24-27, 2005, on the Louisiana State University campus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database?and for the State and Federal geological surveys?to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2005 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 7) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language for the U.S. and for North America.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Digital mapping techniques '06 - Workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '06 (DMT'06) workshop was attended by more than 110 technical experts from 51 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 27 state geological surveys (see Appendix A of these Proceedings). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous nine meetings, which were held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002), Millersville, Pennsylvania (Soller, 2003), Portland, Oregon (Soller, 2004), and Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Soller, 2005). This year's meeting was hosted by the Ohio Geological Survey, from June 11-14, 2006, on the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure that I note that the objective was successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, the latter of which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller, this volume, and http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/info/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database - and for the State and Federal geological surveys - to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2006 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; and 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1999

Digital mapping techniques '99 -- workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '99 (DMT'99) workshop was attended by 91 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 30 state geological surveys (see Appendix A ). This workshop was similar in nature to the first two meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), and in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a). This year's meeting was hosted by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, from May 19 to 22, 1999, on the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, ìpublishingî includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. Especially to support the interest in map preparation and publication, five representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The three annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/datacaptureWG.html ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1981

Bedrock aquifers in the lower Dirty Devil River basin area, Utah, with special emphasis on the Navajo sandstone

The lower Dirty Devil River basin area in southeastern Utah has an area of about 4,300 square miles (11,140 square kilometers) and ranges in altitude from about 3,700 to more than 11,000 feet (1,130 to 3,350 meters) above mean sea level. Precipitation, the main source of water in the area, ranges from slightly less than 6 inches (152 millimeters) per year in the lowlands to more than 30 inches per year (762 millimeters) in the Henry Mountains and along the western boundary.

Utah↗
USGS2001

Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2000. Volume 3. Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins

Introduction The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 3, contains: (1) discharge records for 58 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 5 partial-record stations, and 12 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 11 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 1 streamflow gaging station and 8 ungaged streamsites; and (4) water-level records for 15 ground-water network observation wells and. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-00-3." These water-data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year the report was changed to three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published annually under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist by telephone at (717) 730-6916 or by FAX at (717) 730-6997.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2000

Water Resources Data, Pennsylvania, Water Year 1999. Volume 3. Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins

The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with State, municipal, and Federal agencies, collects a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Pennsylvania each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, these data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data - Pennsylvania, Volumes 1, 2, and 3." Volume 1 contains data for the Delaware River Basin; Volume 2, the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins; and Volume 3, the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins. This report, Volume 3, contains: (1) discharge records for 57 continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, 5 partial-record stations, and 16 special study and miscellaneous streamflow sites; (2) elevation and contents records for 11 lakes and reservoirs; (3) water-quality records for 1 streamflow gaging station and 121 partial-record and project stations; and (4) water-level records for 15 ground-water network observation wells and. Additional water data collected at various sites not involved in the systematic data-collection program may also be presented. Publications similar to this report are published annually by the Geological Survey for all States. For the purpose of archiving, these official reports have an identification number consisting of the two-letter State abbreviation, the last two digits of the water year, and the volume number. For example, this volume is identified as "U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report PA-99-3." These water-data reports, beginning with the 1971 water year, are for sale as paper copy or microfiche by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. The annual series of Water Data Reports for Pennsylvania began with the 1961 water-year report and contained only data relating to quantities of surface water. With the 1964 water year, a companion report (part 2) was introduced that contained only data relating to water quality. Beginning with the 1975 water year the report was changed to three volumes (by river basin), with each volume containing data on quantities of surface water, quality of surface and ground water, and ground-water levels. Prior to the introduction of this series and for several years concurrent with it, water-resources data for Pennsylvania were published in U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers. Data on stream discharge and stage, and on lake or reservoir contents and stage, through September 1960, were published annually under the title "Surface-Water Supply of the United States," which was released in numbered parts as determined by natural drainage basins. For the 1961-70 water years, these data were published in two 5-year reports. Data prior to 1961 are included in two reports: "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States through 1950," and "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960." Data for Pennsylvania are published in Parts 1, 3, and 4. Data on chemical quality, temperature, and suspended sediment for the 1941-70 water years were published annually under the title "Quality of Surface Waters of the United States," and ground-water levels for the 1935-74 water years were published annually under the title "Ground-Water Levels in the United States." The above mentioned Water-Supply Papers may be consulted in the libraries of the principal cities of the United States and may be purchased from the U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Information for ordering specific reports may be obtained from the Pennsylvania District Office at the address on the back of the title page or by phoning the Scientific and Technical Products Section at (717) 730-6940. Information on the availability of unpublished data or statistical analyses may be obtained from the District Information Specialist (telephone (717) 730-6916) or FAX (717) 730-6997.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2020

Communicating hazards—A social science review to meet U.S. Geological Survey needs

This report is for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—and any other—hazard scientists who want to improve the understanding and use of their scientific information, particularly by non-experts. In order for people to use science, they need to understand it. The highly technical, specialized nature of scientific information makes that difficult, particularly when few scientists are trained to communicate with people outside their fields. These issues are of special importance to the USGS because it has many users who are not scientists and because it develops and applies hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of our Nation. In 2010, the Science Application for Risk Reduction group at the USGS discovered the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) guide, “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.” Ever since, a growing number of USGS staff who need to communicate about hazards have used that guide and have asked CRED for a companion report dedicated to hazard communication to harness knowledge from more than 50 years of social science research. In 2016, the USGS and CRED launched a collaboration to develop that companion report. Ultimately, a CRED hazard communication guide would be a Columbia University publication with a wide focus and would include many hazards that are outside the USGS purview. This report is a first step and concentrates strictly on hazard communication needs at the USGS. To identify those needs and tailor this effort to USGS hazard communication priorities, this collaboration began with telephone interviews and an online survey of USGS staff. This report is the result; it summarizes social science research and experience in the areas of hazard communication that USGS participants deemed most important to include.

Circular↗
USGS2002

Digital mapping techniques '02, workshop proceedings : May 19-22, 2002, Salt Lake City, Utah

The Digital Mapping Techniques '02 (DMT'02) workshop was attended by 101 technical experts from 43 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 25 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the previous five meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), and in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001). This year's meeting was hosted by the Utah Geological Survey, from May 19 to 22, 2002, on the University of Utah campus in Salt Lake City. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique on the basis of discussions at the workshop, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996 to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/ ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database--and the State and Federal geological surveys--to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public. At the 2002 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) techniques for scanning already published maps and managing and delivering them on the Web; (3) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and (4) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. In addition, special presentations were provided on building a statewide GIS council, incorporating geology as a NSDI Framework layer, and resolving the roles of surveyors and GIS professionals.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Evaluation of multiple laboratory performance and variability in analysis of recreational freshwaters by a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C)

There is interest in the application of rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods for recreational freshwater quality monitoring of the fecal indicator bacteria Escherichia coli ( E. coli ). In this study we determined the performance of 21 laboratories in meeting proposed, standardized data quality acceptance (QA) criteria and the variability of target gene copy estimates from these laboratories in analyses of 18 shared surface water samples by a draft qPCR method developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for E. coli . The participating laboratories ranged from academic and government laboratories with more extensive qPCR experience to “new” water quality and public health laboratories with relatively little previous experience in most cases. Failures to meet QA criteria for the method were observed in 24% of the total 376 test sample analyses. Of these failures, 39% came from two of the “new” laboratories. Likely factors contributing to QA failures included deviations in recommended procedures for the storage and preparation of reference and control materials. A master standard curve calibration model was also found to give lower overall variability in log 10 target gene copy estimates than the delta-delta Ct (ΔΔCt) calibration model used in previous EPA qPCR methods. However, differences between the mean estimates from the two models were not significant and variability between laboratories was the greatest contributor to overall method variability in either case. Study findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of multiple laboratories implementing this or other qPCR water quality monitoring methods with similar data quality acceptance criteria but suggest that additional practice and/or assistance may be valuable, even for some more generally experienced qPCR laboratories. Special attention should be placed on providing and following explicit guidance on the preparation, storage and handling of reference and control materials.

Water Research↗
USGS1984

Bedrock aquifers in the northern San Rafael Swell area, Utah, with special emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone

This report presents the results of a study of bedrock aquifers in the northern San Rafael Swell area, Utah (fig. 1), with special emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone of Triassic(?) and Jurassic age. The study was made by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights. Fieldwork was done mainly during March 1979-July 1980, with supplemental testing and observations during August-December 1980. The principal objectives of this study were to determine: (1) Well yields of the bedrock formations, (2) the capability of formations to yield, over the long term, water chemically suitable for presently (1980) known uses, and (3) effects of withdrawals from wells on the surface-water supply in the Colorado River Basin.

Utah↗
USGS2014

Climate Change 2014: Technical Summary

Human interference with the climate system is occurring (WGI AR5 SPM Section D.3; WGI AR5 Sections 2.2, 6.3, 10.3 to 10.6, 10.9). Climate change poses risks for human and natural systems. The assessment of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) evaluates how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change. It considers how impacts and risks related to climate change can be reduced and managed through adaptation and mitigation. The report assesses needs, options, opportunities, constraints, resilience, limits, and other aspects associated with adaptation. It recognizes that risks of climate change will vary across regions and populations, through space and time, dependent on myriad factors including the extent of adaptation and mitigation. For the past 2 decades, IPCC’s Working Group II has developed assessments of climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. The WGII AR5 builds from the WGII contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (WGII AR4), published in 2007, and the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), published in 2012. It follows the Working Group I contribution to the AR5. The WGII AR5 is presented in two parts (Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, and Part B: Regional Aspects), reflecting the expanded literature basis and multidisciplinary approach, increased focus on societal impacts and responses, and continued regionally comprehensive coverage. [1.1 to 1.3] The number of scientific publications available for assessing climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability more than doubled between 2005 and 2010, with especially rapid increases in publications related to adaptation, allowing for a more robust assessment that supports policymaking (high confidence). The diversity of the topics and regions covered has similarly expanded, as has the geographic distribution of authors contributing to the knowledge base for climate change assessments. Authorship of climate change publications from developing countries has increased, although it still represents a small fraction of the total. The unequal distribution of publications presents a challenge to the production of a comprehensive and balanced global assessment.

Book chapter↗
USGS2018

A linked GeoData map for enabling information access

Overview The Geospatial Semantic Web (GSW) is an emerging technology that uses the Internet for more effective knowledge engineering and information extraction. Among the aims of the GSW are to structure the semantic specifications of data to reduce ambiguity and to link those data more efficiently. The data are stored as triples, the basic data unit in graph databases, which are similar to the vector data model of geographic information systems (GIS); that is, a node-edge-node model that forms a graph of semantically related information. The GSW is supported by emerging technologies such as linked geospatial data, described below, that enable it to store and manage geographical data that require new cartographic methods for visualization. This report describes a map that can interact with linked geospatial data using a simulation of a data query approach called the browsable graph to find information that is semantically related to a subject of interest, visualized using the Data Driven Documents (D3) library. Such a semantically enabled map functions as a map knowledge base (MKB) (Varanka and Usery, 2017). A MKB differs from a database in an important way. The central element of a triple, alternatively called the edge or property, is composed of a logic formalization that structures the relation between the first and third parts, the nodes or objects. Node-edge-node represents the graphic form of the triple, and the subject-property-object terms represent the data structure. Object classes connect to build a federated graph, similar to a network in visual form. Because the triple property is a logical statement (a predicate), the data graph represents logical propositions or assertions accepted to be true about the subject matter. These logical formalizations can be manipulated to calculate new triples, representing inferred logical assertions, from the existing data. To demonstrate a MKB system, a technical proof-of-concept is developed that uses geographically attributed Resource Description Framework (RDF) serializations of linked data for mapping. The proof-of-concept focuses on accessing triple data from visual elements of a geographic map as the interface to the MKB. The map interface is embedded with other essential functions such as SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL) data query endpoint services and reasoning capabilities of Apache Marmotta (Apache Software Foundation, 2017). An RDF database of the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), which contains official names of domestic feature in the United States, was linked to a county data layer from The National Map of the U.S. Geological Survey. The county data are part of a broader Government Units theme offered to the public as Esri shapefiles. The shapefile used to draw the map itself was converted to a geographic-oriented JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) (GeoJSON) format and linked through various properties with a linked geodata version of the GNIS database called “GNIS–LD” (Butler and others, 2016; B. Regalia and others, University of California-Santa Barbara, written commun., 2017). The GNIS–LD files originated in Terse RDF Triple Language (Turtle) format but were converted to a JSON format specialized in linked data, “JSON–LD” (Beckett and Berners-Lee, 2011; Sorny and others, 2014). The GNIS–LD database is composed of roughly three predominant triple data graphs: Features, Names, and History. The graphs include a set of namespace prefixes used by each of the attributes. Predefining the prefixes made the conversion to the JSON–LD format simple to complete because Turtle and JSON–LD are variant specifications of the basic RDF concept. To convert a shapefile into GeoJSON format to capture the geospatial coordinate geometry objects, an online converter, Mapshaper, was used (Bloch, 2013). To convert the Turtle files, a custom converter written in Java reconstructs the files by parsing each grouping of attributes belonging to one subject and pasting the data into a new file that follows the syntax of JSON–LD. Additionally, the Features file contained its own set of geometries, which was exported into a separate JSON–LD file along with its elevation value to form a fourth file, named “features-geo.json.” Extracted data from external files can be represented in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) path objects. The goal was to import multiple JSON–LD files using this approach.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Evaluation of landslide monitoring in the Polish Carpathians

In response to the June 15, 2010 request from the Polish Geological Institute (PGI) to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for assistance and advice regarding real-time landslide monitoring, landslide specialists from the USGS Landslide Hazard Program visited PGI headquarters and field sites in September 2010. During our visit we became familiar with characteristics of landslides in the Polish Carpathians, reviewed PGI monitoring techniques, and assessed needs for monitoring at recently activated landslides. Visits to several landslides that are monitored by PGI (the Just, Hańczowa, Szymbark, Siercza and Łasńica landslides) revealed that current data collection (monthly GPS and inclinometer surveys, hourly piezometers readings) is generally sufficient for collecting basic information about landslide displacement, depth, and groundwater conditions. Large landslides are typically hydrologically complex, and we would expect such complexity in Carpathian landslides, given the alternating shale and sandstone stratigraphy and complex geologic structures of the flysch bedrock. Consequently groundwater observations could be improved by installing several piezometers that sample the basal shear zone of each landslide being monitored by PGI. These could be supplemented by additional piezometers at shallower depths to help clarify general flow directions and hydraulic gradients. Remedial works at Hańczowa make the landslide unsuitable for monitoring as part of an early warning network. Monitoring there should focus on continued performance of the remedial works. Our suggestions for new monitoring at recently activated landslides are summarized in table 1. Displacement monitoring using extensometers and (or) GPS is a high priority at Kłodne, Łaśnica, Łazki, and Siedloki. Geomorphologic mapping of active surface features (scarps, cracks, shear zones, folds, and thrusts) in sufficient detail to reveal the kinematics of each landslide would greatly help in planning subsurface exploration and monitoring. Mapping should take advantage of existing and future airborne lidar data sets of specific areas, where available. Borehole inclinometers and piezometers would complete the basic monitoring package for these landslides. The landslide at Kłodne may be well suited for more detailed monitoring for landslide process research, although research opportunities exist at the other landslides as well. The landslide near Siedloki may be a good candidate for terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). Tandem streamflow gages upstream and downstream from the Siedloki landslide, or laser distance meters to monitor advancement of the toe, may be needed to provide warning of stream blockage of Potok Milowski. A real-time warning system specifically for the Łazki landslide might be considered due to potential concerns about catastrophic movement into Międzybrodzie Reservoir. Challenges associated with the establishment of a complete real-time monitoring and early warning system are far greater than just the technical and logistical aspects of installing remote monitoring systems at a large number of landslides. Long-term maintenance of a landslide monitoring network will involve considerable effort and expense as sensors break-down from exposure to weather, landslide movement, and harsh underground environmental conditions. Once PGI&rsquo;s planned pilot network of 10-20 monitored landslides is operating, a period of observation and analysis will be needed to establish appropriate alert levels and criteria for issuing alerts and warnings. Simultaneously, discussions with authorities will be needed to develop action plans for responding to landslide notifications and (or) warnings. Public resistance to landslide warnings and mandated evacuations may be high given the low historical incidence of fatalities and injuries resulting from Carpathian landslides and the small potential for warnings to reduce landslide damage to homes and land. Careful weighing of purpose, advantages, and costs of a large-scale monitoring and early warning program is needed early in the planning process and should be revisited regularly throughout pilot and final implementation. In this report, we present a generic plan for monitoring of a hypothetical Carpathian landslide that illustrates how our suggestions for each of the specific landslides could be implemented. The plan includes basic pore pressure, displacement, and weather monitoring, along with supplemental monitoring for special conditions at specific landslides. Table 2 summarizes the overall approach and basic equipment and software requirements.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Digital mapping techniques '00, workshop proceedings - May 17-20, 2000, Lexington, Kentucky

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '00 (DMT'00) workshop was attended by 99 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 28 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the first three meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a), and in May, 1999, in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999). This year's meeting was hosted by the Kentucky Geological Survey, from May 17 to 20, 2000, on the University of Kentucky campus in Lexington. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model; 4) field data-collection systems; and 5) map citation and authorship guidelines. Four representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The four annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Groundwater quality data for the Tahoe-Martis study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 460-square-mile Tahoe–Martis study unit was investigated in June through September 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within the Tahoe–Martis study unit (Tahoe–Martis) and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 52 wells in El Dorado, Placer, and Nevada Counties. Forty-one of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 11 were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, strontium isotope ratio, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen of water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 240 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at 12 percent of the wells, and the results obtained from these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that data for the groundwater samples were not compromised by possible contamination during sample collection, handling or analysis. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw water typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate of compliance or noncompliance with regulatory thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from the Tahoe–Martis wells were below drinking-water thresholds. Organic compounds (VOCs and pesticides) were detected in about 40 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than 1/100th of regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds, although the conentration of perchloroethene in one sample was above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). Concentrations of all trace elements and nutrients in samples from grid wells were below regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds, with five exceptions. Concentrations of arsenic were above the MCL-US in 20 percent of the samples from grid wells. Gross alpha particle activity (MCL-US), boron (CDPH notification level, NL-CA), and molybdenum (USEPA lifetime health advisory, HAL-US) were each detected above thresholds in two of the samples from grid wells, and radon (proposed alternative MCL-US) was detected above the threshold in one sample from a grid well. Most of the samples from Tahoe–Martis grid wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant levels, nonenforceable thresholds set for aesthetic and technical concerns. Fifteen percent of the samples from grid wells contained iron, manganese, or total dissolved solids at concentrations above these levels.

California, Nevada↗