Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

David R. Soller

Publications and source records attributed to David R. Soller.

35 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS2004

Surficial materials in the conterminous United States

Introduction: The Earth's bedrock is overlain in many places by a loosely compacted and mostly unconsolidated blanket of sediments in which soils commonly are developed. These sediments generally were eroded from underlying rock, and then were transported and deposited. In places, they exceed 1,000 ft (330 m) in thickness. Where the sediment blanket is absent, bedrock is either exposed or has been weathered to produce a residual soil. This map shows the sediments and the weathered, residual material; for ease of discussion, these are referred to here as 'surficial materials.' Certain areas on this map include a significant number of rock outcrops, which cannot be shown at the scale of the map; this is noted in the 'Description of Map Units' section. Most daily human activities occur on or near the Earth's surface. Homeowners, communities, and governments can make improved decisions about hazard, resource, and environmental issues, when they understand the nature of surficial materials and how they vary from place to place. For example, are the surficial materials upon which a home is built stable enough to resist subsidence or lateral movement during an earthquake? Do these materials support a ground water resource adequate for new homes? Can they adequately filter contaminants and protect buried aquifers both in underlying sediments and in bedrock? Are they suitable for development of a new wetland? Where can we find materials suitable for aggregate? The USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) works with the State geological surveys to identify priority areas for mapping of surficial materials (for example, in areas of complex and poorly understood deposits of various sediment types, where metropolitan areas are experiencing rapid growth). To help establish these priorities, a modern, synoptic overview of the geology is needed. This map represents an overview of our current knowledge of the composition and distribution of surficial materials in the conterminous United States. (The map covers only the conterminous U.S. because similar geologic information in digital form was not readily available for Alaska and Hawaii.) The best available map has been a highly generalized depiction at 1:7,500,000-scale (about 120 miles to the inch), prepared for the USGS National Atlas (Hunt, 1979; 1986). This map is compiled at a slightly more detailed scale (about 80 miles to the inch) than Hunt (1979; 1986). We used digital methods, which enabled us to rapidly incorporate the variety of source maps available to us. State-scale geologic maps from the western United States were brought directly into this map, without expending the time needed to resolve interpretive differences among them. Therefore, abrupt changes in surficial materials are indicated along many State boundaries. This of course is an artifact of our compilation technique, and a limitation on its utility. However, this approach supports the basic premise of the map -- to provide an overview of surficial materials, and to identify areas where additional work may be needed in order to resolve scientific issues that can, in turn, lead to improved mapping.

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↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
USGS1997

Proceedings of a workshop on digital mapping techniques; methods for geologic map data capture, management, and publication - June 2 - 5, 1997, Lawrence, Kansas

Introduction: From June 2-5, 1997, selected technical representatives of the USGS and State geological surveys participated in the 'AASG/USGS Digital Mapping Techniques' workshop in Lawrence, Kansas. The workshop was initiated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, and was hosted by the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS). With a focus on methods for data capture and digital map production, the goal was to help move the state surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and GIS analysis.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1996

Review of USGS Open-file Report 95-525 ("Cartographic and digital standard for geologic map information") and plans for development of Federal draft standards for geologic map information

This report summarizes a technical review of USGS Open-File Report 95-525, 'Cartographic and Digital Standard for Geologic Map Information' and OFR 95-526 (diskettes containing digital representations of the standard symbols). If you are considering the purchase or use of those documents, you should read this report first. For some purposes, OFR 95-525 (the printed document) will prove to be an excellent resource. However, technical review identified significant problems with the two documents that will be addressed by various Federal and State committees composed of geologists and cartographers, as noted below. Therefore, the 2-year review period noted in OFR 95-525 is no longer applicable. Until those problems are resolved and formal standards are issued, you may consult the following World-Wide Web (WWW) site which contains information about development of geologic map standards: URL: http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/home.html

Open-File Report↗
USGS1992

Text and References To Accompany "Map Showing the Thickness and Character of Quaternary Sediments in the Glaciated United States East of the Rocky Mountains"

A 1:1,000,000-scale map of Quaternary deposits has been compiled for the glaciated area of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains (that is, the area covered by the Laurentide ice sheets). Parts of southern Ontario, areas beneath the Great Lakes, and parts of the submerged eastern seaboard are also included on the map. The map has three components that, together, provide the first regional three-dimensional view of these deposits. These map components are the surface distribution of Quaternary sediments, the total thickness of Quaternary sediments, and the distribution of significant buried Quaternary units. For many areas, this is the first map of Quaternary sediment thickness published at any scale. This report provides supporting information for the map, preliminary interpretations of sediment distribution, and the list of geologic sources used to generate the map. Within the mapped area, there is a particular need for three-dimensional geologic mapping to support decisions on water resources and land use. Approximately 40 percent of the U.S. population resides within the mapped area, which is less than one-quarter the size of the conterminous United States. This map is intended to supplement the more detailed mapping on which it is based and is designed to be a regional planning tool. Through the Pleistocene, large deposits of thick glacial sediment accumulated between certain late Wisconsinan glacial lobes, on bedrock topographic highs, whereas relatively thin deposits generally accumulated in the adjacent bedrock lowlands occupied by drainage and ice lobes. The lithology of the bedrock and its resistance to erosion in part controlled the patterns of ice lobation and the distribution of thick sediment. On a local scale, the spatial relation of these sediment masses to ice lobation has been suggested in places, and a regional correlation may have been assumed. This map provides the first comprehensive, regional view of glacial sediment thickness to permit such a correlation to be assessed.

Bulletin↗
USGS1992

Applying the DRASTIC model: A review of county-scale maps

The potential for contamination of ground water has become an issue of great concern to citizens and government alike, especially in the last decade. Numerous methods for assessing ground water vulnerability to contamination have been proposed and used. These methods include field-scale deterministic models that predict the rate of migration and fate of specific chemicals, and regional models that attempt to show general trends of ground-water vulnerability to contamination. To address regional ground-water vulnerability, a model may focus on characteristics of the soil, the geologic materials at and above the unconfined water table, or on the larger part of the geologic framework containing aquifers. A model's focus significantly affects the characteristics and, therefore, the utility of maps produced by the model. For example, a model focusing on the soil or vadose zone cannot adequately characterize the contamination potential of confined aquifers. The most commonly-used method for regional assessment of ground-water vulnerability is called "DRASTIC," an acronym for the seven factors that comprise the model. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded the development of the DRASTIC model, and used it as an assessment tool in their National Pesticide Survey (USEPA, 1992). In that Survey and in other assessments of contamination potential from application of agricultural chemicals, the pesticide version of DRASTIC is used; it differs from the standard DRASTIC model only in the degree of weighting applied to the seven factors. The DRASTIC model was developed by a committee of technical advisors who used the consensus approach to specify the relative significance of each factor. DRASTIC was designed primarily as a regional tool for prioritization, or screening, to indicate those areas (of at least 100 acres in size) which are generally more sensitive to contamination and, therefore, in need of more detailed mapping and evaluation or monitoring. The committee also intended DRASTIC to support decisions on allocation of scarce monitoring or remediation resources, and to serve as an educational tool. A detailed user's manual for the DRASTIC model (Aller and others, 1987) provides descriptions of common hydrogeologic settings across the United States and expected values for the seven factors; with this information and a specified "weight" or multiplier applied to each factor, DRASTIC scores can be calculated for each setting, and a map of these DRASTIC scores generated. The authors of this model intended it to be sufficiently objective and straightforward that it could be effectively used by persons with but a rudimentary knowledge of hydrogeologic principles. By adjusting the factor values for actual or interpreted local conditions a more knowledgeable person should be able to produce a somewhat more realistic and, therefore, reliable map of ground water vulnerability than by using the expected values for a given hydrogeologic setting. Other models for evaluating regional ground-water vulnerability have been developed; of importance to this report are models developed by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and a joint effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the ISGS. All of these models, as well as DRASTIC, can only estimate the relative potential for contamination, either with a numerical scheme or a hierarchy of contamination potential map units. The model developed by WDNR (Schmidt, 1987) is based on a numerical scheme. It was used to generate a statewide contamination susceptibility map of Wisconsin (Schmidt and Kessler, 1987); Schmidt (1987) defines ground water contamination susceptibility as the "ease with which water (and, presumably, accompanying contaminants) at the surface can reach the water table." The model is not limited to aquifers, but rather considers all unconfined ground water whether in sandy surface aquifers or low-permeability glacial till. Ground water in confined aquifers is not addressed. Contamination susceptibility is estimated by a factor-weighting scheme similar in concept to DRASTIC. The factors (soil texture, surficial deposits, depth to the water table, bedrock type, and glacial drift thickness) are assigned an arbitrary value based on perceived importance. These numbers are then weighted and summed to produce the contamination susceptibility score. This model is compared and contrasted with other models elsewhere in this report. In contrast, the ISGS method avoids the use of a numerical system to rate the relative potential for contamination, and instead orders the map units in a hierarchy from relatively low to relatively high contamination potential. Also in contrast to the two models described above, the ISGS model relies solely on the textural character of the geologic framework to a specified depth. For example, a statewide map (Berg and others, 1984, scale 1:500,000) addresses land burial of wastes, and shows the contamination potential of aquifers within geologic units in the upper 50 feet. Another ISGS map (Keefer and Berg, 1990) addresses the contamination of major, economically important aquifers, and therefore evaluates contamination potential to greater depths (to greater than 300 feet). In general, the ISGS contamination potential maps evaluate aquifers, and do not evaluate potential for contamination of ground water at the unconfined water table in geologic units that are not aquifers (for example, in glacial till or finegrained lake sediments). With the cooperation of the ISGS, I have developed a model (Seller and Berg, in press) for the regional assessment of aquifer contamination potential that is based on ISGS techniques, adapted to a broader map area where detailed information may be unavailable. This model was used to generate a map of aquifer contamination potential for an area encompassing parts of five states near southern Lake Michigan and Lake Erie; the model and map are currently being refined and evaluated.

Open-File Report↗