Explore time-discrete statistical climate downscaling using regression tools and a Jupyter notebook with Python to automate temperature predictions and build a time-series mosaic.This is an archived copy of the tutorial data and will no longer be updated. For an up-to-date version, available only in English, please see Regression Analysis: Building a Regression Model Using ArcGIS Pro, Regression Analysis: Performing Random Forest Regression Using ArcGIS Pro, and Downscaling a Prediction Model Using ArcGIS Notebooks and ArcGIS Pro.

Summary of geographically weighted regression analysis result and model comparisons.

Rising sea levels (SLR) will cause coastal groundwater to rise in many coastal urban environments. Inundation of contaminated soils by groundwater rise (GWR) will alter the physical, biological, and geochemical conditions that influence the fate and transport of existing contaminants. These transformed products can be more toxic and/or more mobile under future conditions driven by SLR and GWR. We reviewed the vulnerability of contaminated sites to GWR in a US national database and in a case comparison with the San Francisco Bay region to estimate the risk of rising groundwater to human and ecosystem health. The results show that 326 sites in the US Superfund program may be vulnerable to changes in groundwater depth or flow direction as a result of SLR, representing 18.1 million hectares of contaminated land. In the San Francisco Bay Area, we found that GWR is predicted to impact twice as much coastal land area as inundation from SLR alone, and 5,297 state-managed sites of contamination may be vulnerable to inundation from GWR in a 1-meter SLR scenario. Increases of only a few centimeters of elevation can mobilize soil contaminants, alter flow directions in a heterogeneous urban environment with underground pipes and utility trenches, and result in new exposure pathways. Pumping for flood protection will elevate the salt water interface, changing groundwater salinity and mobilizing metals in soil. Socially vulnerable communities are more exposed to this risk at both the national scale and in a regional comparison with the San Francisco Bay Area. Methods Data Dryad This data set includes data from the California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the USGS, the US EPA, and the US Census. National Assessment Data Processing: For this portion of the project, ArcGIS Pro and RStudio software applications were used. Data processing for superfund site contaminants in the text and supplementary materials was done in RStudio using R programming language. RStudio and R were also used to clean population data from the American Community Survey. Packages used include: Dplyr, data.table, and tidyverse to clean and organize data from the EPA and ACS. ArcGIS Pro was used to compute spatial data regarding sites in the risk zone and vulnerable populations. DEM data processed for each state removed any elevation data above 10m, keeping anything 10m and below. The Intersection tool was used to identify superfund sites within the 10m sea level rise risk zone. The Calculate Geometry tool was used to calculate the area within each coastal state that was occupied by the 10m SLR zone and used again to calculate the area of each superfund site. Summary Statistics were used to generate the total proportion of superfund site surface area / 10m SLR area for each state. To generate population estimates of socially vulnerable households in proximity to superfund sites, we followed methods similar to that of Carter and Kalman (2020). First, we generated buffers at the 1km, 3km, and 5km distance of superfund sites. Then, using Tabulate Intersection, the estimated population of each census block group within each buffer zone was calculated. Summary Statistics were used to generate total numbers for each state. Bay Area Data Processing: In this regional study, we compared the groundwater elevation projections by Befus et al (2020) to a combined dataset of contaminated sites that we built from two separate databases (Envirostor and GeoTracker) that are maintained by two independent agencies of the State of California (DTSC and WRCB). We used ArcGIS to manage both the groundwater surfaces, as raster files, from Befus et al (2020) and the State’s point datasets of street addresses for contaminated sites. We used SF BCDC (2020) as the source of social vulnerability rankings for census blocks, using block shapefiles from the US Census (ACS) dataset. In addition, we generated isolines that represent the magnitude of change in groundwater elevation in specific sea level rise scenarios. We compared these isolines of change in elevation to the USGS geological map of the San Francisco Bay region and noted that groundwater is predicted to rise farther inland where Holocene paleochannels meet artificial fill near the shoreline. We also used maps of historic baylands (altered by dikes and fill) from the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to identify the number of contaminated sites over rising groundwater that are located on former mudflats and tidal marshes. The contaminated sites' data from the California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) and the Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) was clipped to our study area of nine-bay area counties. The study area does not include the ocean shorelines or the north bay delta area because the water system dynamics differ in deltas. The data was cleaned of any duplicates within each dataset using the Find Identical and Delete Identical tools. Then duplicates between the two datasets were removed by running the intersect tool for the DTSC and WRCB point data. We chose this method over searching for duplicates by name because some sites change names when management is transferred from DTSC to WRCB. Lastly, the datasets were sorted into open and closed sites based on the DTSC and WRCB classifications which are shown in a table in the paper's supplemental material. To calculate areas of rising groundwater, we used data from the USGS paper “Projected groundwater head for coastal California using present-day and future sea-level rise scenarios” by Befus, K. M., Barnard, P., Hoover, D. J., & Erikson, L. (2020). We used the hydraulic conductivity of 1 condition (Kh1) to calculate areas of rising groundwater. We used the Raster Calculator to subtract the existing groundwater head from the groundwater head under a 1-meter of sea level rise scenario to find the areas where groundwater is rising. Using the Reclass Raster tool, we reclassified the data to give every cell with a value of 0.1016 meters (4”) or greater a value of 1. We chose 0.1016 because groundwater rise of that little can leach into pipes and infrastructure. We then used the Raster to Poly tool to generate polygons of areas of groundwater rise.

Description: This dataset consists of field data (arthropods, nematodes and NDVI) collected over the course of 6 field excursions in 2015 and 2016 near TyTy, GA, in a field used for growing Miscanthus x giganteus. It also includes interpolated values of soil measurements collected in 2015 and meteorological data collected on an adjacent farm. Point-in-time measurements include all meteorological, NDVI, arthropod and nematode measurements and their derivatives. Fixed values were measurements that were held constant across all sampling dates, including location, terrain and soils measurements and their derivatives. Dawn Olson and Jason Schmidt collected and processed arthropod count data. Jason Schmidt collected and processed spider count data and computed spider diversity. Richard Davis collected and processed nematode count data. Alisa Coffin collected and processed NDVI data and positional locations. Tim Strickland collected and processed soils data and Alisa Coffin interpolated soils values using kriging to derive values at arthropod sample locations. David Bosch collected and processed meteorological data. Lynne Seymour provided statistical expertise in deriving any estimated values (phloem feeders, parasitoids, spiders, and natural enemies). Alisa Coffin derived terrain data (elevation, slope, aspect, and distances) from publicly available datasets, transformed values (SI, WI, etc), carried out the geographically weighted regression analysis and calculated C:SE values, harmonized the full dataset, and compiled it using Esri's ArcGIS Pro 2.5. Methods for most data are published in the accompanying paper and associated supplements. Questions about dataset development and management should be directed to Alisa Coffin (alisa.coffin@usda.gov). This work was accomplished as a joint USDA and University of Georgia project funded by a cooperative agreement (#6048-13000-026-21S). This research was a contribution from the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network. LTAR is supported by the United States Department of Agriculture. At request of the author, the data resources are under embargo. The embargo will expire on Fri, Jan 01, 2021. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Spreadsheet of data. File Name: GibbsMisFarm_Arthrop_Env_DepVar_201516_final.xlsxResource Description: This workbook contains all of the data used in this analysis. The first worksheet contains data dictionary information.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel, Office 365,url: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel Resource Title: GeoJSON. File Name: MiscanthusXGiganteusGeoJSON.json