Geology Reports⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2006

FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)

PLEASE NOTE: This now-approved 'FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)' officially supercedes its earlier (2000) Public Review Draft version (see 'Earlier Versions of the Standard' below). In August 2006, the Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization was officially endorsed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as the national standard for the digital cartographic representation of geologic map features (FGDC Document Number FGDC-STD-013-2006). Presented herein is the PostScript Implementation of the standard, which will enable users to directly apply the symbols in the standard to geologic maps and illustrations prepared in desktop illustration and (or) publishing software. The FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization contains descriptions, examples, cartographic specifications, and notes on usage for a wide variety of symbols that may be used on typical, general-purpose geologic maps and related products such as cross sections. The standard also can be used for different kinds of special-purpose or derivative map products and databases that may be focused on a specific geoscience topic (for example, slope stability) or class of features (for example, a fault map). The standard is scale-independent, meaning that the symbols are appropriate for use with geologic mapping compiled or published at any scale. It will be useful to anyone who either produces or uses geologic map information, whether in analog or digital form. Please be aware that this standard is not intended to be used inflexibly or in a manner that will limit one's ability to communicate the observations and interpretations gained from geologic mapping. In certain situations, a symbol or its usage might need to be modified in order to better represent a particular feature on a geologic map or cross section. This standard allows the use of any symbol that doesn't conflict with others in the standard, provided that it is clearly explained on the map and in the database. In addition, modifying the size, color, and (or) lineweight of an existing symbol to suit the needs of a particular map or output device also is permitted, provided that the modified symbol's appearance is not too similar to another symbol on the map. Be aware, however, that reducing lineweights below .125 mm (.005 inch) may cause symbols to plot incorrectly if output at higher resolutions (1800 dpi or higher). For guidelines on symbol usage, as well as on color design and map labeling, please refer to the standard's introductory text. Also found there are informational sections covering concepts of geologic mapping and some definitions of geologic map features, as well as sections on the newly defined concepts and terminology for the scientific confidence and locational accuracy of geologic map features. More information on both the past development and the future maintenance of the FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization can be found at the FGDC Geologic Data Subcommittee website (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/). Earlier Versions of the Standard

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS1876

Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories: Volume II, Number 3

Table of Contents I.-----Notes descriptive of some geological sections of the country about the headwaters of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. By F.V. Hayden II.----Notes on the tertiary and cretaceous periods of Kansas. By B.F. Mudge III.---Notes concerning a contour map of the United States. By Henry Gannett, M.E. IV.----The flora of southwestern Colorado. By T.S. Brandegree V.-----Brief synopsis of North American earwigs, with an appendix on the fossil species. By Samuel H. Scudder VI.----List of the orthoptera collected by Dr. A.S. Packard in Colorado and the neighboring territories during the summer of 1875. By Samuel H. Scudder VII.---Notice of a small collection of butterflies made by Dr. A.S. Packard in Colorado and Utah in 1875. By Samuel H. Scudder VIII.--Notes on the grammatical structure of the Nez Perces language. By George Ainslie

Report↗
USGS2023

Stratigraphic notes—Volume 1, 2022

This is the first volume in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) series of reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes,” which consists of short papers that highlight stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. “Stratigraphic Notes” is a long-term (multiyear), multivolume publication containing articles that address updates or revisions to stratigraphic nomenclature (and whose content ultimately will be incorporated by National Geologic Map Database personnel into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). We welcome papers for the “Stratigraphic Notes” series from geoscientists of the USGS, of State Geological Surveys, and from academicians. Papers can be submitted for publication in “Stratigraphic Notes” by contacting the USGS Geologic Names Committee ( gnc@usgs.gov ). As new “Stratigraphic Notes” volumes are published, links to the volumes will be posted at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 . This first volume ("Stratigraphic notes—Volume 1, 2022") includes articles that provide guidance for those who wish to submit papers to “Stratigraphic Notes,” as well as information on how to make your manuscripts compliant for geologic names reviews and how to organize your paper’s content to facilitate inclusion of new or revised names in Geolex. This volume also includes some specific guidance on conducting geologic names reviews of geologic and hydrogeologic reports.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2023

Stratigraphic Notes

Welcome to the resurrected series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes.” For several decades, until the mid-1990s, the USGS published volumes of short papers that highlighted stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. The purpose was to encourage formal documentation on these topics. Today (2023) the need for such documentation has become especially important because of the increasing number of informal reports that use new or updated stratigraphic nomenclature. Because the North American Stratigraphic Code does not recognize informal reports as proper publications to formalize stratigraphic studies, a report series such as “Stratigraphic Notes” is needed to bridge this gap. “Stratigraphic Notes” is a long-term (multiyear), multivolume publication containing articles that address updates or revisions to stratigraphic nomenclature (and whose content ultimately will be incorporated into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). The papers in “Stratigraphic Notes” are meant to be an outlet to communicate changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, to support geologic map publications, and to facilitate compilation of new geologic maps and their databases. The goal is to publish a new volume each year, each of which will contain papers that present results of stratigraphic studies drawn from scientific interpretations of stratigraphic and biostratigraphic changes related to changes in environments of deposition and facies, as well as interpretations of igneous and metamorphic units. We welcome papers for the “Stratigraphic Notes” series from geoscientists of the USGS, of State Geological Surveys, and from academicians. Papers can be submitted for publication in “Stratigraphic Notes” by contacting the USGS Geologic Names Committee ( gnc@usgs.gov ). As new “Stratigraphic Notes” volumes are published, links to the volumes will be posted here at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 .

Professional Paper↗
USGS2025

Stratigraphic notes—Volume 2, 2025

This is the second volume in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) series of reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes,” which consists of short papers that highlight stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. “Stratigraphic Notes” is a long-term (multiyear), multivolume publication containing articles that address updates or revisions to stratigraphic nomenclature (and whose content ultimately will be incorporated by National Geologic Map Database personnel into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). We welcome papers for the “Stratigraphic Notes” series from geoscientists of the USGS, of State Geological Surveys, and from academicians. Papers can be submitted for publication in “Stratigraphic Notes” by contacting the USGS Geologic Names Committee ( gnc@usgs.gov ). As new “Stratigraphic Notes” volumes are published, links to the volumes will be posted at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 .

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Stratigraphic notes—Volume 3, 2026

This is the third volume in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) series of reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes,” which consists of short papers that highlight stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. “Stratigraphic Notes” is a long-term (multiyear), multivolume publication containing articles that address updates or revisions to stratigraphic nomenclature (and whose content ultimately will be incorporated by National Geologic Map Database personnel into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). We welcome papers for the “Stratigraphic Notes” series from geoscientists of the USGS, of State Geological Surveys, and from academicians. Papers can be submitted for publication in “Stratigraphic Notes” by contacting the USGS Geologic Names Committee ( gnc@usgs.gov ). As new “Stratigraphic Notes” volumes are published, links to the volumes will be posted at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 .

Professional Paper↗
USGS2006

Estimating landslide losses - preliminary results of a seven-State pilot project

Introduction: In 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazards Program provided funding for seven State geological surveys to report on the status of landslide investigation strategies in each of their States, and to suggest improved ways to approach the tracking of landslides, their effects, losses associated with the landslides, and hazard mitigation strategies. Each State was to provide a draft report suggesting innovative ways to track landslides, and to participate in subsequent workshops. A workshop was convened in June 2003 in Lincoln, Neb., to discuss the results and future strategies on how best to incorporate the seven pilot projects into one methodology that all of the 50 States could adopt. The seven individual reports produced by the State surveys are published here to put forth a forum for discussion of the varying methods of tracking landslides. The goal is to eventually adopt a single, universally applied methodology to track landslides that will provide a consistent framework for collecting data on landslide damage and economic impact. Participating States include: California (James Davis, Jack McMillan); Kentucky (Jim Cobb, John Kiefer, John Rockaway); Nebraska (Mark Kuzila, Duane Eversoll); Ohio (Thomas Berg, Jon Rockaway), Oregon (John Beaulieu, Yumei Wang, Renee Summers, Jon Hofmeister); Pennsylvania (Jay Parrish, Helen Delano); Utah (Richard Allis, Francis Ashland). The USGS personnel involved in the planning and meeting facilitation are Paula Gori, Peter Lyttle, and John Pallister. The general USGS strategy to address landslide loss reduction was developed with input from State geological surveys, the engineering-geology consulting community, and academic investigators. The strategy was reviewed by the National Research Council, 2004), is summarized in USGS Circular 1244 (Spiker and Gori, 2003) and is endorsed by the AASG. This pilot study, conducted by seven State geological surveys, examines the feasibility of collecting accurate and reliable information on economic losses associated with landslides. Each State survey examined the availability, distribution, and inherent uncertainties of economic loss data in their study areas. Their results provide the basis for identifying the most fruitful methods of collecting landslide loss data nationally, using methods that are consistent and provide common goals. These results can enhance and establish the future directions of scientific investigation priorities by convincingly documenting landslide risks and consequences that are universal throughout the 50 States. This report is organized as follows: A general summary of the pilot project history, goals, and preliminary conclusions from the Lincoln, Neb. workshop are presented first. Internet links are then provided for each State report, which appear on the internet in PDF format and which have been placed at the end of this open-file report. A reference section follows the reports, and, lastly, an Appendix of categories of landslide loss and sources of loss information is included for the reader's information. Please note: The Oregon Geological Survey has also submitted a preliminary report on indirect loss estimation methodology, which is also linked with the others. Each State report is unique and presented in the form in which it was submitted, having been independently peer reviewed by each respective State survey. As such, no universal 'style' or format has been adopted as there have been no decisions on which inventory methods will be recommended to the 50 states, as of this writing. The reports are presented here as information for decision makers, and for the record; although several reports provide recommendations on inventory methods that could be adopted nationwide, currently no decisions have been made on adopting a uniform methodology for the States.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1980

Goat paddock cryptoexplosion crater, Western Australia

Goat Paddock, a crater slightly over 5 km in diameter (18??20??? S, 126??40???E), lies at the north edge of the King Leopold Range/Mueller Range junction in the Kimberley district, Western Australia (Fig. 1). It was noted as a geological anomaly in 1964 during regional mapping by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics and the Geological Survey of Western Australia. The possibility of its being a meteorite impact crater has been discussed1, although this suggestion was subsequently ignored2. Two holes were drilled by a mining corporation in 1972 to test whether kimberlite underlay the structure. Here we report the findings of five days of reconnaissance in August 1979 which established that Goat Paddock is a cryptoexplosion crater containing shocked rocks and an unusually well exposed set of structural features. ?? 1980 Nature Publishing Group.

Nature↗
USGS1997

Synthesis of the paleoclimatic record from Owens Lake core OL-92

During much of the late Quaternary, Owens Lake overflowed into one or more of four successively lower-elevation basins. Most of the water came from the high, eastern slopes of the southern Sierra Nevada, and changes in the volumes of that water reflect a dominant climatic cycle of ~100 k.y. Variations in the inflow to, and outflow from, Owens Lake since ca. 800 ka left biological, chemical, mineralogical, and geophysical evidence in the sediments of those changes. Biological evidence includes fossil ostracodes, diatoms, fish, and mollusks (and δ 18 O data from their shells) which indicate fresh or brackish lake water on the basis of their modern habitats. Fossil pollens indicate ~20 regional vegetation cycles during the same period. Chemical evidence of high inflow and, commonly, outflow volumes is provided by the low inorganic- and organic-C content of some sediments, reflecting short lake-water residence times; long residence times produced higher and more variable quantities of these components. Mineralogical variations in illite/smectite ratios indicate changes in weathering processes and glacial comminution. High magnetic susceptibility correlates with other criteria that indicate high runoff. Between 810 ka and 645 ka, Owens Lake was fresh, several meters deep, and depositing silt with a few beds of sand; it supported a flora and fauna now found in fresh, sometimes very cool, waters. (Note that most geologic ages describing the OL-92 chronology have been rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 ka.) A shallow-but-freshwater lake may have been the result of accelerated sedimentation during an earlier (>800 ka) glaciation in the Sierra Nevada, choking the basin with sediment nearly to its spillway level. Between 645 ka and 450 ka, the lake was probably even shallower, depositing beds of coarse to fine sand, but overflowing periodically allowing its water to remain fresh. Between 450 ka and 5 ka, Owens Lake was mostly deep, alternating between spilling and being closed part of the time. It deposited silt and clay on its floor, yet underwent detectable variations in salinity caused by climate changes; this part of the record is the most easily interpreted and constitutes the main basis for comparing this paleoclimatic record with other long records. From 5 ka to A.D. 1913, when the Owens River was diverted into an aqueduct, Owens Lake was shallow (~2 m to ~15 m), moderately saline (~5% to <15% salts), and depositing oolites. After 1913, the lake desiccated. Comparison of the Owens Lake water-depth record with that of Searles Lake, two-basins downstream during much of late Pleistocene time, shows that they underwent similar responses to climate, but sedimentation changes documenting those responses commenced thousands of years apart, apparently because changes in precipitation volumes occurred gradually. Owens Lake, at the base of high mountains, was the first to reflect increasing amounts of regional precipitation; Searles, in a more arid environment, was the first to reflect decreasing amounts of precipitation. Devils Hole, 150 km east of Owens Lake, has a well dated isotopic-temperature record that resembles the Owens Lake-depth record. Marine records of Pleistocene glacial fluctuations, which measure high-latitude ice-sheet volumes and thus both precipitation and temperature at those latitudes, also resemble the Owens Lake history. There are, however, differences between the ages of the maxima and minima of climatic events as reconstructed from the Owens Lake core and similar-appearing inflections in the other two records; the differences range from 0 to 33 k.y. and average ~15 k.y. The question arises whether the differences between those ages are results of errors in the time-scale used for the Owens Lake record, or were there significant differences in the times when atmospheric climate change began to affect its different elements. The three records compared here are measurements of different elements and combinations of elements in two latitude belts: the deep-sea marine records measure combinations of temperature and precipitation that determined global ice volumes (at mostly high latitudes), the Devils Hole record measures atmospheric temperatures (in its mid-latitude region), and the Owens Lake record measures effective precipitation (in the same mid-latitude region).

California↗
USGS2008

Geographical Overview of the Three Gorges Dam and Reservoir, China - Geologic Hazards and Environmental Impacts

The Three Gorges Dam and Reservoir on the Yangtze River, China, has been an ambitious and controversial project. The dam, the largest in the world as of 2008, will provide hydropower, help to manage flood conditions, and increase the navigability of the Yangtze River. However, this massive project has displaced human and animal populations and altered the stability of the banks of the Yangtze, and it may intensify the seismic hazard of the area. It has also hindered archeological investigations in the reservoir and dam area. This report, originally in the form of a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, gives a short history and overview of the dam construction and subsequent consequences, especially geologic hazards already noted or possible in the future. The report provides photographs, diagrams, and references for the reader's further research - a necessity, because this great undertaking is dynamic, and both its problems and successes continue to evolve. The challenges and consequences of Three Gorges Dam will be closely watched and documented as lessons learned and applied to future projects in China and elsewhere.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1965

Geological Survey research, 1965, Chapter D

Scientific notes and summaries of investigations by members of the Conservation, Geologic, and Water Resources Divisions tn geology, hydrology, and related fields.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2001

Seismic Landslide Hazard for the City of Berkeley, California

This map describes the possible hazard from earthquake-induced landslides for the city of Berkeley, CA. The hazard depicted by this map was modeled for a scenario corresponding to an M=7.1 earthquake on the Hayward, CA fault. This scenario magnitude is associated with complete rupture of the northern and southern segments of the Hayward fault, an event that has an estimated return period of about 500 years. The modeled hazard also corresponds to completely saturated ground-water conditions resulting from an extreme storm event or series of storm events. This combination of earthquake and ground-water scenarios represents a particularly severe state of hazard for earthquake-induced landslides. For dry ground-water conditions, overall hazard will be less, while relative patterns of hazard are likely to change. Purpose: The map is intended as a tool for regional planning. Any site-specific planning or analysis should be undertaken with the assistance of a qualified geotechnical engineer. This hazard map should not be used as a substitute to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map for the same area. (See California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999). As previously noted for maps of this type by Wieczorek and others (1985), this map should not be used as a basis to determine the absolute risk from seismically triggered landslides at any locality, as the sole justification for zoning or rezoning any parcel, for detailed design of any lifeline, for site-specific hazard-reduction planning, or for setting or modifying insurance rates.

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map↗
USGS1977

Geologic interpretation of a radioactivity anomaly near the west fork of the Buckland River, western Alaska

A large part of western Alaska has been included in a uranium- thorium metallogenic province (Clark and others, 1974; Miller and Bunker, 1976; Miller, 1976) chiefly because of the occurrence of uraniferous plutonic rocks with local concentrations of uranium minerals. Recently, however, anomalous amounts of uranium and thorium have been found by the Geological Survey in volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks near the headwaters of the West Fork of the Buckland River in the central Candle quadrangle (fig. 1). This occurrence is apparently in a different geologic environment than previously noted uranium occurrences in western Alaska. An increase in radioactivity was noted in this general area and three airborne gamma-ray survey traverses, done as part of an ERDA-sponsored reconnaissance survey of western Alaska, cross the area (figs. 1, 2) and confirm the existence of a radioactivity anomaly (U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1975, report GJO-1653).

Alaska↗
USGS1970

Hydrogeologic data for the lower Housatonic River basin, Connecticut

This report contains hydrologic and geologic data collected for an investigation of the lower Housatonic River basin by the U.S. Geological Survey in financial cooperation with the Connecticut Water Resources Commission. The report also summarizes data that are available in other publications. The towns within the 557 square mile area of the basin in western Connecticut include all of Beacon Falls, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Seymour, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, and Woodbury; and parts of Ansonia, Bethany, Bethlehem, Bristol, Burlington, Cheshire, Derby, Easton, Goshen, Narwinton, Litchfield, Milford, Monroe, Morris, New Hartford, Newtown, Norfolk, Orange, Plymouth, Prospect, Roxbury, Shelton, Southbury, Stratford, Torrington, Trumbull, Washington, Winchester, Wolcott, and Woodbridge. The factual information on the following pages was the basis for a companion interpretive report, Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 19 (Wilson, W. E., and others, in preparation, 1970). The basic-data report can be used alone for detailed information needed in planning water resources development at specific sites or it can be used to supplement the interpretive report. Data were collected for this investigation from 1965 to 1967. Water levels measured in wells as part of this investigation were published in Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 7 (Meikle and Baker, 1965) and No. 13 (Meikle, 1967) with water-level data from other wells throughout the State. Publications containing relevant ground-water information are listed on page those concerned with streamflow are on page 5 and those on quality of water, are on page 6. The locations of sites at which data were collected are shown on plate A in the back pocket of this report. Data presented here were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey unless otherwise noted.

Connecticut↗