Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Open File Map”

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 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
USGS1993

Hydrologic data collected in Maumelle and Winona reservoir systems, central Arkansas, May 1989 through October 1992

Physical, chemical, and biological water-quality data were collected and compiled for sites located in the Lakes Maumelle and Winona reservoir systems May 5, 1989, to October 30, 1992. Data were collected in order to establish a comprehensive water-quality data base for the two systems and will be used in water-quality interpretive chemical variables (temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, light transparency, and penetration); solids, and major cations and anions); trace metals; organics (pesticides and industrial organic chemicals); and biological components (bacteria and chlorophyll-a); and nutrients, trace metals, and organic contaminants in bed material. Reservoir sedimentation was measured by comparing fathometry measurements taken during the study to pre-impoundment tophographic maps.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1996

Ground-water data for the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and contiguous areas, north-central Oregon

This report presents well data that were collected and compiled during 1985-86 by the U.S. Geological Survey and used to determine the amount of ground water discharging to the Deschutes River on and near the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. The report contains well-construction data from 171 wells, information from drillers' logs for 66 wells, water-level data for 29 wells, and a map showing well locations.

Oregon↗
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↗
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

Coal fields and federal lands of the conterminous United States

The map depicts the relationship of coal and public lands in the conterminous U. S. Multiple GIS layers are being created for the purpose of deriving estimates of how much coal is owned and administered by the Federal government. Federal coal areas have a profound effect on land-management decisions. Regulatory agencies attempt to balance energy development with alternative land-use and environmental concerns. A GIS database of Federal lands used in energy resource assessments is being developed by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to integrate information on status of public land, and minerals owned by the Federal government with geologic information on coal resources, other spatial data, coal quality characteristics, and coal availability for development. Using national-scale data we estimate that approximately 60 percent of the area underlain by coal-bearing rocks in the conterminous United States are under Federal surface. Coal produced from Federal leases has tripled from about 12 percent of the total U.S. production in 1976 to almost 34 percent in 1995 (Energy Information Administration website ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/coal/cia_95_tables/t13p01.txt). The reason for this increase is demand for low-sulfur coal for use in power plants and the fact that large reserves of this low-sulfur coal are in the western interior U.S., where the Federal government owns the rights to most of the coal reserves. The map was created using Arc/Info 7.0.3 on a UNIX system. The HPGL2 plot file for this map is available from the USGS Energy Resource Surveys Team from http://energy.cr.usgs.gov:8080/energy/coal.html.

Conterminous United States↗
USGS2009

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

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

Open-File Report↗
USGS1955

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1954

This report supersedes TEI-400, "U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S> Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1954. If a report, or portion of a report, has been published, the fact is indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also Part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public (this part supersedes Part I of Bulletin 1019-B). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. If a report, or portion of the report, has been published in more than one form, appropriate cross-references are given to indicate the other forms of publication. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II; however, if the abstract of a Trace Elements report has been published in NSA, the fact is indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1954, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects and supersedes Part II of Bulletin 1019-B. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest, Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, area may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also, where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is an author index. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Smith and Brown indicated that Smith is the senior author. A listing of Smith with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; C, Circular; B, Bulletin; P, Professional Paper; MC, Maps and Charts; J, Journal; and NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS1972

Palynological investigations in the Pennsylvanian of Kentucky - VII

This is the seventh open-file report concerned primarily with palynological analyses of Pennsylvanian coals, shales, and underclays. It is part of the cooperative mapping project between Kentucky and the U. S. Geological Survey. This report contains palynological analyses of samples from Wise, Norton, Appalachia, and Keokee quadrangles in Virginia as well as from Roxana, Benham, Pennington Gap, Louellen, Williamsburg, and Saxton quadrangles of eastern Kentucky. Two sets of samples were examined from localities in the Jellico West quadrangle of Tennessee, and four sets-of samples were examined from South Hill and Cromwell quadrangles of western Kentucky. A total of 138 samples have been run and more than 13,250 specimens identified and counted. All analyses completed since the release of Open-file Report VI are included in this report. Other reports will be placed in open-file when they are completed and released for general use.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1976

Geochemical maps showing the distribution and abundance of copper in the Tanacross Quadrangle, Alaska

This series of geochemical maps shows the distribution of copper in four sample media: (A) the oxide residue (the oxalic-acid-leachable fraction) of the stream sediment, (B) the minus-80-mesh stream sediment, (C) the ash of streambank sod (mixed organic and inorganic material) collected beneath the water level, and (D) the ash of aquatic bryophytes (mosses). The copper data are plotted on base maps showing generalized geology and the drainage pattern. The map symbols show the sample sites and ranges of values in the following manner: (1) open symbols denote background, (2) small black symbols represent weakly anomalous values, and (3) large black symbols denotes strongly anomalous values. Because the small black symbols represent weakly anomalous values, they are considered to be significant only where they are closely associated with strongly anomalous metal values either in the same sample medium or with anomalous values in other sample media. The ranges of values represented by the symbols are shown on the histograms which accompany the geochemical maps. An explanation of sampling, preparation, and analytical procedures is given in Circular 734, which accompanies this folio. Complete analytical data for geochemical samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Tanacross quadrangle are available in a U.S. Geological Survey open-file report (O'Leary and others, 1976).

Alaska↗
USGS2007

Southwest Exotic Mapping Program 2007: Occurrence summary and maps of select invasive, non-native plants in Arizona

An important aspect of management of invasive, non-native plants (invasive plants) is information on the type, location, and magnitude of infestations. Regional development of this information requires an integrated program of data collection, management, and delivery. The Southwest Exotic Plant Mapping Program (SWEMP), coordinated through the U.S. Geological Survey’s Southwest Biological Science Center, annually compiles occurrence records for infestations of invasive plants. Operating since 1998, the SWEMP team has accepted occurrence records contributed voluntarily by federal, tribal, state, and private collaborators and has compiled these contributions accumulatively with previous versions of SWEMP. The SWEMP 2007 regional database update, SWEMP07, contains 62,000 records for 221 plant species with records dating as far back as 1911 and up to December, 2006. Records include invasive plants in Arizona, eastern California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. SWEMP07 is available through the Southwest Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse ( http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/research/projects/swepic/swepic.asp , click SWEMP). Not all invasive plants are non-native and not all invasive plants are even invasive. The Arizona Invasive Species Advisory Council (2006) defined an invasive species as “a species that is (1) non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and, (2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health”. SWEMP uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture PLANTS database ( http://plants.usda.gov/ ) to determine if a plant is native or not to Arizona. As SWEMP does not independently assess the current or potential impact of invasive plants, we include most non-native plant records contributed. We have not included agricultural crops that are non-native, for example apples, oranges, etc. In this open-file-report, we use the SWEMP07 update to summarize the occurrence of invasive plants in Arizona and present distribution maps for a select invasive plants in Arizona. We use the word occurrence purposefully instead of the word distribution. The SWEMP07 database only provides an estimate of the actual distribution of invasive plants in Arizona. The information provided is a first approximation of the state-wide extent of invasive plant distribution.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Modeling of depth to base of Last Glacial Maximum and seafloor sediment thickness for the California State Waters Map Series, eastern Santa Barbara Channel, California

Models of the depth to the base of Last Glacial Maximum and sediment thickness over the base of Last Glacial Maximum for the eastern Santa Barbara Channel are a key part of the maps of shallow subsurface geology and structure for offshore Refugio to Hueneme Canyon, California, in the California State Waters Map Series. A satisfactory interpolation of the two datasets that accounted for regional geologic structure was developed using geographic information systems modeling and graphics software tools. Regional sediment volumes were determined from the model. Source data files suitable for geographic information systems mapping applications are provided.

California↗
USGS2025

Geologic map of the Greater Antilles and Virgin Islands

Introduction The geologic map of the Greater Antilles and Virgin Islands is a compilation of information from the literature, integrated to provide a seamless geologic map of the region. This map was prepared to serve as a base map for a mineral resource assessment of the region. Several small-scale regional geologic maps of the region have been prepared in the past. This report supersedes an earlier version of the geologic map of the Greater Antilles and the Virgin Islands that was released as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Report 2019–1036. For this report, the regional geologic overview shown on sheet 1 covers Cuba; the island of Hispaniola, which includes Haiti and Dominican Republic; Jamaica; the Cayman Islands; Puerto Rico; and the U.S. and British Virgin Islands. Sheet 2 shows the geology of Cuba and Cayman Islands, sheet 3 the geology of Jamaica, sheet 4 the geology of Hispaniola, and sheet 5 the geology of Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. Accompanying the maps are three tables: table 1 lists the map units (in alphabetical order by map-unit label), their ages, and the countries or territories in which they can be found. These are listed in alphabetical order for ease in locating unit names from the symbols on the maps. Table 2 is a list of sources for the geologic map compilation of Puerto Rico. Table 3 shows formations in the Devil’s Race Course Group of Jamaica.

Greater Antilles, Virgin Islands↗
USGS2017

Oregon OCS seafloor mapping: Selected lease blocks relevant to renewable energy

In 2014 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) entered into Intra-agency agreement M13PG00037 to map an area of the Oregon Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off of Coos Bay, Oregon, under consideration for development of a floating wind energy farm. The BOEM requires seafloor mapping and site characterization studies in order to evaluate the impact of seafloor and sub-seafloor conditions on the installation, operation, and structural integrity of proposed renewable energy projects, as well as to assess the potential effects of construction and operations on archaeological resources. The mission of the USGS is to provide geologic, topographic, and hydrologic information that contributes to the wise management of the Nation's natural resources and that promotes the health, safety, and well being of the people. This information consists of maps, databases, and descriptions and analyses of the water, energy, and mineral resources, land surface, underlying geologic structure, and dynamic processes of the earth. For the Oregon OCS study, the USGS acquired multibeam echo sounder and seafloor video data surrounding the proposed development site, which is 95 km2 in area and 15 miles offshore from Coos Bay. The development site had been surveyed by Solmar Hydro Inc. in 2013 under a contract with WindFloat Pacific. The USGS subsequently produced a bathymetry digital elevation model and a backscatter intensity grid that were merged with existing data collected by the contractor. The merged grids were published along with visual observations of benthic geo-habitat from the video data in an associated USGS data release (Cochrane and others, 2015). This report includes the results of analysis of the video data conducted by Oregon State University and the geo-habitat interpretation of the multibeam echo sounder (MBES) data conducted by the USGS. MBES data was published in Cochrane and others (2015). Interpretive data associated with this publication is published in Cochrane (2017). All the data is provided as geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both Esri ArcGIS geotiffs or shapefiles. For those who do not own the full suite of Esri GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using Esri ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed August 29, 2016). Web services, which consist of standard implementations of ArcGIS representational state transfer (REST) Service and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) GIS web map service (WMS), also are available for all published GIS data. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file, resulting in data layers that are symbolized as shown on the associated report figures. Both the ArcGIS REST Service and OGC WMS Service include all the individual GIS layers. Data layers are bundled together in a map-area web service; however, each layer can be symbolized and accessed individually after the web service is ingested into a desktop application or web map. Web services enable users to download and view data, as well as to easily add data to their own workflows, using any browser-enabled, standalone or mobile device. Though the surficial substrate is dominated by combinations of mud and sand substrate, a diverse assortment of geomorphologic features are related to geologic processes—one anticlinal ridge where bedrock is exposed, a slump and associated scarps, and pockmarks. Pockmarks are seen in the form of fields of small pockmarks, a lineation of large pockmarks with methanogenic carbonates, and areas of large pockmarks that have merged into larger variously shaped depressions. The slump appears to have originated at the pockmark lineation. Video-supervised numerical analysis of the MBES backscatter intensity data and vector ruggedness derived from the MBES bathymetry data was used to produce a substrate model called a seafloor character raster for the study area. The seafloor character raster consists of three substrate classes: soft-flat areas, hard-flat areas, and hard-rugged areas. A Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) geoform and substrate map was also produced using depth, slope, and benthic position index classes to delineate geoform boundaries. Seven geoforms were identified in this process, including ridges, slump scars, slump deposits, basins, and pockmarks. Statistical analysis of the video data for correlations between substrate, depth, and invertebrate assemblages resulted in the identification of seven biomes: three hard-bottom biomes and four softbottom biomes. A similar analysis of vertebrate observations produces a similar set of biomes. The biome between-group dissimilarity was very high or high. Invertebrates alone represent most of the structure of the whole benthic community into different assemblages. A biotope map was generated using the seafloor character raster and the substrate and depth values of the biomes. Hard substrate biotopes were small in size and were located primarily on the ridge and in pockmarks along the pockmark lineation. The soft-bottom bitopes consisted of large contiguous areas delimited by isobaths.

Open-File Report↗