SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Geologic Notes”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

USGS1977

Uranium, radium, and selected metallic-element analyses of spring water and travertine samples from the Grand Canyon, Arizona

Samples for this report were collected from springs and travertine deposits along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Sampling was done in April and May of 1976. Data obtained from these samples will be used by R. A. Cadigan and J. K. Felmlee as part of a project designed to determine the value of subsurface waters in prospecting for uranium deposits. Sample sites were preselected at approximately equal intervals, but river conditions and accessibility forced some modification of the sampling plan at each spring visited, a 2-liter untreated water sample was collected to be analyzed for uranium and radium. At two of the sample locations, an additional 4-liter water sample was collected, filtered, acidified, and later analyzed for the 24 additional elements listed in table-2. A more detailed description of the sampling technique is presented in Brown and others, 1970. All samples were placed in full, tightly capped plastic containers. Temperature and conductivity were measured in the field. Measurements of the pH of the non-acidified samples were made in the laboratory a few weeks after the samples were collected. An effort was made to collect the freshest possible travertine samples, but the freshness of the samples varied, as noted in the descriptions of the sample sites. Analyses were performed by laboratories of the U.S. Geological Survey. Radium values were determined by radiochemical methods; uranium, by extraction fluorometry; eU (equivalent uranium), by beta-gamma count; and other elements, by semiquantitative emission spectrography. Table 1 is a description of the sample sites. The analytical results for spring water are presented in table 2. Table 3 gives the analyses of the travertine samples.

Arizona↗

USGS1989

Non-energy minerals and surficial geology of the continental margin of Maryland

The surficial sediments have been mapped and the shallow geologic framework outlined of the Maryland inner continental shelf. The initial study encompassed a small area offshore of Assateague Island but was extended northward to include the Ocean City area and eastward across several linear shoals. The surficial sediments are predominantly sand with mean grain sizes ranging from 0.40 to 2.89∅. Mud and gravel are the mappable components of the surficial sediments. Muds are distributed along a N-S-trending band seaward of the shoreface. Gravels are mapped farther offshore in 18–22 m of water. Four distinct seismic units are identified from seismic reflection profiles. The lowermost unit, T1, exhibits high-angle clinoforms truncated at the top by a locally prominent near-horizontal reflector. Above this reflector are concordant strata with parallel to subparallel bedding designated as Q2. Incised into Q2 is an extensive channel, Q3, that trends both coast-parallel and coast-normal. The upper unit, Q4, overlaps portions of units Q2 and Q3 along the eastward edges of the study area and is represented in the nearshore by (Holocene inlet?) channeling adjacent to the shoreface. Note that this excludes the modern shelf and “sheet”.

Marine Geology↗

USGS2011

The Hydrogeology of the San Juan Mountains Chapter 5

Knowledge of the occurrence, storage, and flow of groundwater in mountainous regions is limited by the lack of integrated data from wells, streams, springs, and climate. In his comprehensive treatment of the hydrogeology of the San Luis Valley, Huntley (1979) hypothesized that the underlying, fractured volcanic bedrock of the San Juan Mountains has relatively high bulk permeability and a regional-scale water table with a low hydraulic gradient. Other (some more recent) studies of fractured crystalline bedrock in mountainous terrain indicate that these rock units can act as aquifers (Kahn et al. 2008; Manning and Caine 2007; Robinson 1978; Stober and Bucher 2005). The body of recent work also suggests that the conception that fractured crystalline bedrock is of such low permeability that it constitutes a “no-flow zone” may be inappropriate. In addition to establishing a new baseline, the data presented here are used to test Huntley’s (1979) hypotheses that suggest that the San Juan Mountains may be underlain by a substantial groundwater system. With the advent of computers and digital databases, many types of publicly available data can be used to test hypotheses and provide new insights into mountain hydrogeology at the regional scale in the San Juan Mountains. Plate 16 illustrates processes that suggest several fundamental questions arising from our lack of knowledge of mountain hydrogeology. These questions include: What are the dynamic interrelationships among the tectonics of mountain building, climate, and groundwater, and what are the time scales over which associated processes operate? How does extreme topographic relief allow for groundwater recharge along steep surfaces rather than simply causing precipitation to run off ? How does extreme relief translate into hydraulic gradients that drive groundwater flow? Can extreme gradients drive large volumes of meteoric water deep into the Earth’s upper crust? Once in the subsurface, what are the residence times of these waters? Finally, how does complex geology, commonly associated with mountainous terrain, influence these processes and control potentially heterogeneous and tortuous flow pathways? This chapter presents a synthesis of hydrogeological data, in a reconnaissance style, at the regional scale for the San Juan Mountains. Analyses of these data shed some light on the questions posed earlier for the San Juan Mountains and on mountain hydrogeologic processes in general. These analyses are based on public digital data from geologic and topographic maps, precipitation networks, stream gauges, groundwater wells, and springs. These data can be integrated using the hydrologic cycle expressed as a mass balance between inputs and outputs. The data types noted earlier form the basic set of measurements used to explore, characterize, and quantify elements of the hydrologic cycle. This exploration at a variety of scales yields insight into the relationships among the physical geological framework, climatological and hydrological budgets, and the hydraulic properties of the major aquifers in the San Juan Mountains. Each of these factors has been broken down and investigated separately and then integrated at the end of the chapter, using a conceptual model. Although the San Juan Mountains contain extensive precious- and base-metal deposits that have led to natural and mining-related groundwater contamination, this topic is not addressed here. Interested readers should refer to the extensive body of US Geological Survey work in Gray et al. (1994), Plumlee et al. (1995), Wirt et al. (1999), Johnson and Yager (2006), Johnson et al. (2007), and Church, von Guerard, and Finger (2007). Huntley (1979) also provided a large database for regional hydro-geochemistry of the San Juan Mountains (SJM).

Colorado↗

USGS2002

Statistical methods in water resources

Preface This book began as class notes for a course we teach on applied statistical methods to hydrologists of the Water Resources Division, U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). It reflects our attempts to teach statistical methods which are appropriate for analysis of water resources data. As interest in this course has grown outside of the USGS, incentive grew to develop the material into a textbook. The topics covered are those we feel are of greatest usefulness to the practicing water resources scientist. Yet all topics can be directly applied to many other types of environmental data. This book is not a stand-alone text on statistics, or a text on statistical hydrology. For example, in addition to this material we use a textbook on introductory statistics in the USGS training course. As a consequence, discussions of topics such as probability theory required in a general statistics textbook will not be found here. Derivations of most equations are not presented. Important tables included in all general statistics texts, such as quantiles of the normal distribution, are not found here. Neither are details of how statistical distributions should be fitted to flood data -- these are adequately covered in numerous books on statistical hydrology. We have instead chosen to emphasize topics not always found in introductory statistics textbooks, and often not adequately covered in statistical textbooks for scientists and engineers. Tables included here, for example, are those found more often in books on nonparametric statistics than in books likely to have been used in college courses for engineers. This book points the environmental and water resources scientist to robust and nonparametric statistics, and to exploratory data analysis. We believe that the characteristics of environmental (and perhaps most other 'real') data drive analysis methods towards use of robust and nonparametric methods. Exercises are included at the end of chapters. In our course, students compute each type of analysis (t-test, regression, etc.) the first time by hand. We choose the smaller, simpler examples for hand computation. In this way the mechanics of the process are fully understood, and computer software is seen as less mysterious. We wish to acknowledge and thank several other scientists at the U. S. Geological Survey for contributing ideas to this book. In particular, we thank those who have served as the other instructors at the USGS training course. Ed Gilroy has critiqued and improved much of the material found in this book. Tim Cohn has contributed in several areas, particularly to the sections on bias correction in regression, and methods for data below the reporting limit. Richard Alexander has added to the trend analysis chapter, and Charles Crawford has contributed ideas for regression and ANOVA. Their work has undoubtedly made its way into this book without adequate recognition. Professor Ken Potter (University of Wisconsin) and Dr. Gary Tasker (USGS) reviewed the manuscript, spending long hours with no reward except the knowledge that they have improved the work of others. For that we are very grateful. We also thank Madeline Sabin, who carefully typed original drafts of the class notes on which the book is based. As always, the responsibility for all errors and slanted thinking are ours alone.

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations↗

USGS2002

Comparison of two probability distributions used to model sizes of undiscovered oil and gas accumulations: Does the tail wag the assessment?

Undiscovered oil and gas assessments are commonly reported as aggregate estimates of hydrocarbon volumes. Potential commercial value and discovery costs are, however, determined by accumulation size, so engineers, economists, decision makers, and sometimes policy analysts are most interested in projected discovery sizes. The lognormal and Pareto distributions have been used to model exploration target sizes. This note contrasts the outcomes of applying these alternative distributions to the play level assessments of the U.S. Geological Survey's 1995 National Oil and Gas Assessment. Using the same numbers of undiscovered accumulations and the same minimum, medium, and maximum size estimates, substitution of the shifted truncated lognormal distribution for the shifted truncated Pareto distribution reduced assessed undiscovered oil by 16% and gas by 15%. Nearly all of the volume differences resulted because the lognormal had fewer larger fields relative to the Pareto. The lognormal also resulted in a smaller number of small fields relative to the Pareto. For the Permian Basin case study presented here, reserve addition costs were 20% higher with the lognormal size assumption. ?? 2002 International Association for Mathematical Geology.

Mathematical Geology↗

USGS2011

U.S. Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices

The USGS has a long and proud tradition of objective, unbiased science in service to the Nation. A reputation for impartiality and excellence is one of our most important assets. To help preserve this vital asset, in 2004 the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) of the USGS was charged by the Director to develop a set of fundamental science practices, philosophical premises, and operational principles as the foundation for all USGS research and monitoring activities. In a concept document, 'Fundamental Science Practices of the U.S. Geological Survey', the ELT proposed 'a set of fundamental principles to underlie USGS science practices.' The document noted that protecting the reputation of USGS science for quality and objectivity requires the following key elements: - Clearly articulated, Bureau-wide fundamental science practices. - A shared understanding at all levels of the organization that the health and future of the USGS depend on following these practices. - The investment of budget, time, and people to ensure that the USGS reputation and high-quality standards are maintained. The USGS Fundamental Science Practices (FSP) encompass all elements of research investigations, including data collection, experimentation, analysis, writing results, peer review, management review, and Bureau approval and publication of information products. The focus of FSP is on how science is carried out and how products are produced and disseminated. FSP is not designed to address the question of what work the USGS should do; that is addressed in USGS science planning handbooks and other documents. Building from longstanding existing USGS policies and the ELT concept document, in May 2006, FSP policies were developed with input from all parts of the organization and were subsequently incorporated into the Bureau's Survey Manual. In developing an implementation plan for FSP policy, the intent was to recognize and incorporate the best of USGS current practices to obtain the optimum overall program for our science. In January 2009, the USGS moved to full implementation of FSP. The FSP Advisory Committee (FSPAC) was formed to serve as the Bureau's working and standing committee to ensure the objectivity and quality of the Bureau's science information products and to provide support for the full implementation of FSP.

Circular↗

USGS2015

Chemicals of emerging concern in water and bottom sediment in the Great Lakes Basin, 2012: collection methods, analytical methods, quality assurance, and study data

In synoptic surveys of surface-water quality across the United States, a large group of organic chemicals associated with agricultural, household, and industrial waste have been detected. These chemicals are referred to collectively as chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) and include prescription drugs and antibiotics, over-the-counter medications, reproductive hormones, personal-care products, detergent metabolites, and flame retardants. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collaborated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a study to identify the presence of CECs in water and bottom-sediment samples collected during 2012 at 66 sites throughout the Great Lakes Basin. The 2012 effort is part of a long-term study that was initiated in 2010. The purposes of this report are to document the collection and analytical methods, provide the quality-assurance data and analyses, and provide the water and bottom-sediment data for this study of CECs in the Great Lakes Basin for 2012. A previous report documents data collected during 2010 and 2011. The methods used for chemical analyses were identical between the 2010–11 and 2012 studies, with the exception that a method to determine nontarget chemicals was used during 2010–11. The data from this study are published as a USGS Data Series Report to ensure adequate documentation of the original methods and provide a citable source for study data. This report contains no interpretations of the study data. The chemical data are as reported by the laboratory and have not been censored or adjusted unless otherwise noted. Field measurements were recorded and samples were collected in April and May and in September 2012, by U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency personnel. Study sites included tributaries to the Great Lakes located near Duluth, Minnesota; King, Wisconsin; Green Bay, Wis.; Detroit, Michigan; Monroe, Mich.; Toledo, Ohio, and Rochester, New York. Water and bottom-sediment samples were analyzed at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, for a broad suite of CECs. During this 2012 study, 140 environmental and 8 field duplicate samples of surface water and wastewater effluent, 1 field blank water sample, and 5 field spike water samples were collected or prepared. Water samples were analyzed at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory using laboratory schedule 4433 for wastewater indicators, research method 8244 for pharmaceuticals, and laboratory schedule 4434 for steroid hormones, sterols, and bisphenol A. For wastewater indicators in unfiltered water, 61 of the 68 chemicals analyzed using laboratory schedule 4433 had detectable concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 64.4 micrograms per liter. Thirty-eight of the 48 chemicals analyzed using research method 8244 for pharmaceuticals in unfiltered water had detectable concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 3.32 micrograms per liter. Twelve of the 20 chemicals analyzed using laboratory schedule 4434 for steroid hormones, sterols, and bisphenol A in unfiltered water had detectable concentrations ranging from 0.43 to 120,000 nanograms per liter. During this study, 53 environmental samples, 4 field duplicate samples, and 8 field spike samples of bottom sediment and laboratory matrix-spike samples were analyzed for a wide variety of CECs at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory using laboratory schedule 5433 for wastewater indicators; research method 6434 for steroid hormones, sterols, and bisphenol A; and research method 9008 for human-use pharmaceuticals and antidepressants. Forty of the 57 chemicals analyzed using laboratory schedule 5433 had detectable concentrations ranging from 1 to 49,000 micrograms per kilogram. Fourteen of the 20 chemicals analyzed using research method 6434 had detectable concentrations ranging from 0.04 to 24,940 nanograms per gram. Ten of the 20 chemicals analyzed using research method 9008 had detectable concentrations ranging from 0.59 to 197.5 micrograms per kilogram. Five of the 11 chemicals analyzed using research method 9008 had detectable concentrations ranging from 1.16 to 25.0 micrograms per kilogram.

Great Lakes Basin↗

USGS2009

Mineral resource of the month: lime

The article presents facts about lime, which is said to be a caustic chemical manufactured from limestone or other calcium carbonates in a kiln at temperatures ranging from 935 to 1,350 degrees Celsius. It states that lime is widely used in industries such as steelmaking, paper production and chemical manufacturing. It also mentions that global lime production amounts up to 280 million metric tons annually. However, it notes that international trade in lime is limited.

Earth↗

USGS1990

Inside active volcanoes; an exhibit on the move!

All of us are aware of the emphasis currently being placed in the United States on science education and public understanding of science. Most of this emphasis is directed toward mass audiences through book publications, school curricula, and television programs; sadly, most of it deals with non-earth science topics. In an effort to take advantage of this awakened consciousness and to highlight the earth sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S Geological Survey joined forces to prepare a traveling exhibit on volcanoes that is currently touring the country. This note will serve to bring you up to date on the progress of this exhibit as it reaches the mid-point of its tour.

Earthquakes & Volcanoes (USGS)↗

USGS2010

Color imaging of Mars by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE)

HiRISE has been producing a large number of scientifically useful color products of Mars and other planetary objects. The three broad spectral bands, coupled with the highly sensitive 14 bit detectors and time delay integration, enable detection of subtle color differences. The very high spatial resolution of HiRISE can augment the mineralogic interpretations based on multispectral (THEMIS) and hyperspectral datasets (TES, OMEGA and CRISM) and thereby enable detailed geologic and stratigraphic interpretations at meter scales. In addition to providing some examples of color images and their interpretation, we describe the processing techniques used to produce them and note some of the minor artifacts in the output. We also provide an example of how HiRISE color products can be effectively used to expand mineral and lithologic mapping provided by CRISM data products that are backed by other spectral datasets. The utility of high quality color data for understanding geologic processes on Mars has been one of the major successes of HiRISE.

Icarus↗

USGS2020

North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature Note 70: Records of the Stratigraphic Commission 2014-2017

NACSN (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature) Note 70 is a summary of the activities of the Commission from October 2014-October 2017. This note is condensed from the minutes of the 69th through the 72nd meetings of the NACSN held in conjunction with the Annual Meetings of the Geological Society of America. The 69th meeting of the NACSN was held October 20, 2014, in Vancouver, British Columbia; the 70th meeting on November 2, 2015, in Baltimore, Maryland; the 71st meeting on September 26, 2016, in Denver, Colorado; and the 72nd meeting on October 23, 2017, in Seattle, Washington. Members of the NACSN who served as officers during the period 2014-2017 serve as co-authors of this note and are listed with their roles in Appendix A. The mission of the NACSN is to develop statements of stratigraphic principles, recommend procedures applicable to the classification of nomenclature of stratigraphic units, review problems in classifying and naming stratigraphic and related units, and formulate expressions of judgement on these matters. Commissioners of the NACSN represent various geoscience professional organizations from Canada, Mexico, and the United States who have an interest in maintaining a stable stratigraphic nomenclature. Commissioners and their constituencies for 2014-2017 are listed in Appendix B.

Stratigraphy↗

USGS1907

Geology of the Marysville mining district, Montana: A study of igneous intrusion and contact metamorphism

The Marysville mining district had been for many years previous to 1899 one of the noted gold-producing centers of Montana. The mines are situated around the margins of in irregular batholith of quartz diorite, whose surface exposure is from half a mile to 1 1/2 miles broad and 2 1/2 miles long. This invasion of igneous rock, which as shown on later pages of this report was primarily the cause of the location of the mineral wealth in this district, is but 6 miles at its nearest point from the exposed surface of the far greater Boulder batholith, a granitic mass which is petrographically a quartz monzonite in normal composition. The Boulder batholith possesses a general rudely rectangular form, occupying about 60 miles in latitude by about 35 in longitude, and holds within its confines the mining city of Butte, from which for many years past has poured a flood of silver and a quarter of the world's copper. Other smaller mining centers also lie within this large granitic area, while such important ore deposits as those of Elkhorn and Unionville, south of Helena, have been found about its margin. Thus the Boulder batholith, with the outlying related areas at Marysville and at Granite, constitutes one of the more important centers of mining for the precious metals within the United States. · The necessity of studying such regions from the scientific point of view is evident, not only in order to develop the phases of immediate economic bearing, such as the limits of occurrence of the ore deposits, the degree of their continuity in depth, and other similar questions, but also because of the broader bearing which such studies must have on theoretical and applied geology in general.

Montana↗

USGS2018

A practical primer on geostatistics

Introduction The Challenge —Most geological phenomena are extraordinarily complex in their interrelationships and vast in their geographical extension. Ordinarily, engineers and geoscientists are faced with corporate or scientific requirements to properly prepare geological models with measurements involving a small fraction of the entire area or volume of interest. Exact description of a system such as an oil reservoir is neither feasible nor economically possible. The results are necessarily uncertain. Note that the uncertainty is not an intrinsic property of the systems; it is the result of incomplete knowledge by the observer. The Aim of Geostatistics —The main objective of geostatistics is the characterization of spatial systems that are incompletely known, systems that are common in geology. A key difference from classical statistics is that geostatistics uses the sampling location of every measurement. Unless the measurements show spatial correlation, the application of geostatistics is pointless. Ordinarily the need for additional knowledge goes beyond a few points, which explains the display of results graphically as fishnet plots, block diagrams, and maps. Geostatistical Methods —Geostatistics is a collection of numerical techniques for the characterization of spatial attributes using primarily two tools: probabilistic models, which are used for spatial data in a manner similar to the way in which time-series analysis characterizes temporal data, or pattern recognition techniques. The probabilistic models are used as a way to handle uncertainty in results away from sampling locations, making a radical departure from alternative approaches like inverse distance estimation methods. Differences with Time Series —On dealing with time-series analysis, users frequently concentrate their attention on extrapolations for making forecasts. Although users of geostatistics may be interested in extrapolation, the methods work at their best interpolating. This simple difference has significant methodological implications. Historical Remarks —As a discipline, geostatistics was firmly established in the 1960s by the French engineer Georges Matheron, who was interested in the appraisal of ore reserves in mining. Geostatistics did not develop overnight. Like other disciplines, it has built on previous results, many of which were formulated with different objectives in various fields. Pioneers —Seminal ideas conceptually related to what today we call geostatistics or spatial statistics are found in the work of several pioneers, including: 1940s: A.N. Kolmogorov in turbulent flow and N. Wiener in stochastic processing; 1950s: D. Krige in mining; 1960s: B. Mathern in forestry and L.S. Gandin in meteorology Calculations —Serious applications of geostatistics require the use of digital computers. Although for most geostatistical techniques rudimentary implementation from scratch is fairly straightforward, coding programs from scratch is recommended only as part of a practice that may help users to gain a better grasp of the formulations. Software —For professional work, the reader should employ software packages that have been thoroughly tested to handle any sampling scheme, that run as efficiently as possible, and that offer graphic capabilities for the analysis and display of results. This primer employs primarily the package Stanford Geomodeling Software (SGeMS) - recently developed at the Energy Resources Engineering Department at Stanford University - as a way to show how to obtain results practically. This applied side of the primer should not be interpreted as the notes being a manual for the use of SGeMS. The main objective of the primer is to help the reader gain an understanding of the fundamental concepts and tools in geostatistics. Organization of the Primer —The chapters of greatest importance are those covering kriging and simulation. All other materials are peripheral and are included for better comprehension of these main geostatistical modeling tools. The choice of kriging versus simulation is often a big puzzle to the uninitiated, let alone the different variants of both of them. Chapters 14, 18, and 19 are intended to shed light on those subjects. The critical aspect of assessing and modeling spatial correlation is covered in chapter 7. Chapters 2 and 3 review relevant concepts in classical statistics. Course Objectives —This course offers stochastic solutions to common problems in the characterization of complex geological systems. At the end of the course, participants should have: an understanding of the theoretical foundations of geostatistics; a good grasp of its possibilities and limitations; and reasonable familiarity with the SGeMS software, thus opening the possibility of practically applying geostatistics.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2025

Local, regional, and distal recordings of seismic unrest at Tau Island volcano, American Samoa

A seismic swarm near Taʻū Island, a volcanic island in eastern American Samoa, occurred from July to October 2022. The earliest unrest was noted as felt shaking reports in late July, and instrumentation varied in the beginning of the sequence as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hawaiian Volcano Observatory responded by installing temporary and then permanent seismometers to monitor the activity. This network variability made it difficult to characterize the earliest seismicity and contextualize the entire sequence to discriminate between an underlying tectonic or volcanic source. Here, we present results analyzing hydroacoustic detections from an International Monitoring System hydrophone array near Wake Island, 4500 km northwest of Taʻū Island volcano. Using least-squares beamforming analysis, we create a catalog of T-wave detections from the direction of Taʻū Island to track the earthquakes, some of which were located by the USGS National EarthquakeInformation Center. Both the rate and hydroacoustic pressures, which we interpret as a proxy for earthquake size, gradually increased from late July to August, peaking on August 19 (rate) and August 24 (size), before decreasing to background in late September. Minutes-long bursts of tremor were also contemporaneously recorded as local network data became avail-able on August 20. Tremor activity continued throughout the rest of August, peaking on August 25, before ending in earlySeptember. These tremor bursts were band-limited to ~ 1–5 Hz and recorded as S waves at a regional station on the island of Upolu in Samoa, 250 km to the west of Taʻū Island. Our results do not constrain the tremor locations, but comparisons of earthquake and tremor reduced displacements recorded locally and regionally suggest a deeper tremor source. We interpret the increase in earthquake size and rate, together with the occurrence, characteristics, and relative depth of the tremor to be the result of magmatic activity beneath Taʻū Island volcano.

American Samoa, Taʻū Island↗

USGS1961

Geologic map of part of the Beaver quadrangle, Utah

Tertiary volcanic and intrusive rocks underlie a large area surrounding Marysvale in southwestern Utah. Part of the Beaver quadrangle and four complete 15-minute quadrangles, Marysvale, Delano Peak, Sevier, and Monroe, have been mapped to cover the areal extent of these rocks. Mapping in the Beaver quadrangle has been restricted to the northeastern part, the area containing the western part of this volcanic province. The mapped area of the quadrangle contains the westernmost slopes of the Tushar Mountains, which slopes steeply to the eastern edge of the Great Basin. The area is thoroughly dissected and its topography is extremely rugged, having a maximum relief of more than 3,500 feet. Wildcat, Indian, and North Creeks have developed the most prominent and steeply walled canyons. The area of about 42 square miles lies about 6 miles northeast of Beaver. A main nortb-south thoroughfare, United States Highway 91, connects Beaver with Salt Lake City 208 miles to the north. Roads in the canyons of Indian Creek and North Creek allow entry into the area. The geology of the Beaver quadrangle was mapped by Callaghan, but most of the report was written by Parker from field notes, previous reports, and oral data supplied by Callaghan.

Utah↗

USGS1978

Matrix effects on the determination of manganese in geological materials by atomic-absorption spectrophotometry under different flame conditions

Suppression caused by five of the seven matrix elements studied (Si, Al, Fe, Ca and Mg) was observed in the atomic-absorption determination of manganese in geological materials, when synthetic solutions and the recommended oxidizing air—acetylene flame were used. The magnitude of the suppression effects depends on (1) the kind and concentration of the interfering elements, (2) the type of acid medium, and (3) the concentration of manganese to be determined. All interferences noted are removed or alleviated by using a reducing nitrous oxide—acetylene flame. The atomic-absorption method using this flame can be applied to the determination of total and extractable manganese in a wide range of geological materials without interferences. Analyses of six U.S. Geological Survey rock standards for manganese gave results in agreement with the reported values.

Talanta↗

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↗

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↗