Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Names”

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 991 records · Page 55Linked to original sources
USGS1990

Digitization of a geologic map for the Quebec-Maine-Gulf of Maine global geoscience transect

The Bedrock Geologic Map of Maine was digitized and combined with digital geologic data for Quebec and the Gulf of Maine for the Quebec-Maine-Gulf of Maine Geologic Transect Project. This map is being combined with digital geophysical data to produce three-dimensional depictions of the subsurface geology and to produce cross sections of the Earth's crust. It is an essential component of a transect that stretches from the craton near Quebec City, Quebec, to the Atlantic Ocean Basin south of Georges Bank. The transect is part of the Global Geosciences Transect Project of the International Lithosphere Program. The Digital Line Graph format is used for storage of the digitized data. A coding scheme similar to that used for base category planimetric data was developed to assign numeric codes to the digitized geologic data. These codes were used to assign attributes to polygon and line features to describe rock type, age, name, tectonic setting of original deposition, mineralogy, and composition of igneous plutonic rocks, as well as faults and other linear features. The digital geologic data can be readily edited, rescaled, and reprojected. The attribute codes allow generalization and selective retrieval of the geologic features. The codes allow assignment of map colors based on age, lithology, or other attribute. The Digital Line Graph format is a general transfer format that is supported by many software vendors and is easily transferred between systems.

Circular↗
USGS2003

Monitoring amphibians in Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Amphibian species have inexplicably declined or disappeared in many regions of the world, and in some instances, serious malformations have been observed. In the United States, amphibian declines frequently have occurred even in protected areas. Causes for the declines and malformations probably are varied and may not even be related. The seemingly sudden declines in widely separated areas, however, suggests a need to monitor amphibian populations as well as identify the causes when declines or malformations are discovered. In 2000, the President of the United States and Congress directed Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies to develop a plan to monitor the trends in amphibian populations on DOI lands and to conduct causes of declines. The DOI has stewardship responsibilities over vast land holdings in the United States, much of it occupied by, or potential habitat for, amphibians. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was given lead responsibility for planning and organizing this program, named the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI). Authorization carried the mandate to set up a national amphibian monitoring program on Federal lands, to develop the sampling techniques and biometrical analyses necessary to determine status and trends, and to identify possible causes of amphibian declines and malformations. The biological importance of Great Smoky Mountains National Park has been recognized by its designation as an International Biosphere Reserve. As such, it is clearly the leading region of significance for amphibian research. Although no other region shares the wealth of amphibians as found in the Great Smokies (31 species of salamanders, and 13 of frogs), the entire southern and mid-section of the Appalachian Mountain chain is characterized by a high diversity of amphibians, and inventories and monitoring protocols developed in the Smokies likely will be applicable to other Appalachian National Park Service properties. From 1998 to 2001, USGS biologists carried out a pilot inventory and monitoring research project in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. A variety of inventory, sampling, and monitoring techniques were employed and tested. These included wide-scale visual encounter surveys of amphibians at terrestrial and aquatic sites, intensive monitoring of selected plots, randomly placed small-grid plot sampling, litterbag sampling in streams, monitoring nesting females of selected species, call surveys, and monitoring specialized habitats, such as caves. Coupled with information derived from amphibian surveys on Federal lands using various other techniques (automated frog call data loggers, PVC pipes, drift fences, terrestrial and aquatic traps), an amphibian monitoring program was designed to best meet the needs of biologists and natural resource managers after taking into consideration the logistics, terrain, and life histories of the species found within Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This report provides an overview of the Park’s amphibians, the factors affecting their distribution, a review of important areas of biodiversity, and a summary of amphibian life history in the Southern Appalachians. In addition, survey techniques are described as well as examples of how the techniques are set up, a critique of what the results tell the observer, and a discussion of the limitations of the techniques and the data. The report reviews considerations for site selection, outlines steps for biosecurity and for processing diseased or dying animals, and provides resource managers with a decision tree on how to monitor the Park’s amphibians based on different levels of available resources. It concludes with an extensive list of references for inventorying and monitoring amphibians. USGS and Great Smoky Mountains National Park biologists need to establish cooperative efforts and training to ensure that congressionally mandated amphibian surveys are performed in a statistically rigorous and biologically meaningful manner, and that amphibian populations on Federal lands are monitored to ensure their long-term survival. The research detailed in this report will aid these cooperative efforts.

North Carolina, Tennessee↗
USGS2004

Geology of the National Capital Region: Field trip guidebook

The 2004 Joint Northeast-Southeast Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America is the fourth such meeting and the third to be held in or near Washington, D.C. This guidebook and the field trips presented herein are intended to provide meeting participants, as well as other interested readers, a means to understand and enjoy the rich geological and historical legacy of the National Capital Region. The field trips cover all of the major physiographic and geologic provinces of the central Appalachians in the Mid-Atlantic region. Trip 1 outlines the tectonic history of northern Virginia along an east-to-west transect from the Coastal Plain province to the Blue Ridge province, whereas the other field trips each focus on a specific province. From west to east, these excursions investigate the paleoclimate controls on the stratigraphy of the Paleozoic rocks of the Allegheny Plateau and Valley and Ridge province in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Trip 3); Eocene volcanic rocks that intrude Paleozoic rocks in the westernmost Valley and Ridge province in Virginia and West Virginia (Trip 4); age, petrology, and structure of Mesoproterozoic gneisses and granitoids located in the Blue Ridge province within and near Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (Trip 2); the use of argon data to unravel the complex structural and thermal history of the metamorphic rocks of the eastern Piedmont province in Maryland and Virginia (Trip 5); the use of cosmogenic isotopes to understand the timing of bedrock incision and formation of terraces along the Potomac River in the eastern Piedmont province near Great Falls, Virginia and Maryland (Trip 6); the nature of the boundary between rocks of the Goochland and Chopawamsic terranes in the eastern Piedmont of Virginia (Trip 7); the role of bluffs and fluvial terraces of the Coastal Plain in the Civil War Battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia (Trip 8); and the Tertiary lithology and paleontology of Coastal Plain strata around the Chesapeake Bay of Virginia and Maryland (Trip 9). Some of the field trips present new geochronological research that uses isotopic techniques to unravel Earth history and processes, including U-Pb dating to determine the timing of metamorphism and igneous activity associated with the Mesoproterozoic Grenville orogeny (Trip 2); argon (4DAr/39Ar) analysis to understand the complex Paleozoic history of deformation and metamorphism in the Piedmont (Trip 5); and cosmogenic beryllium-10 data to derive exposure ages of landforms and deposits of the Potomac River valley (Trip 6). Several trips shed insight on significant or enigmatic geologic features of the region. Trip 3 presents evidence for global paleoclimate controls on the Paleozoic stratigraphy of the Appalachian basin, including evidence for Late Devonian glacial deposits. Trip 4 investigates unusual Eocene igneous rocks in the Eastern United States, and Trip 2 visits several local ductile high-strain zones, offering geologists opportunities to consider the importance of such structures relative to the poorly understood Rockfish Valley fault zone in the Blue Ridge province. In the Piedmont province, Trip 7 focuses on a controversial terrane boundary, whereas Trip 5 crosses several lithologic belts with distinct thermotectonic histories that suggest terrane boundaries. Trip 6 sheds new light on the erosional history of a major river gorge cut into crystalline rocks in the Fall Zone. Four trips are recommended for Earth science teachers and are cosponsored by the National Association of Geologic Teachers (NAGT). These trips focus on the tectonic history of northern Virginia (Trip 1), terraces of the Potomac River at Great Falls and cosmogenic isotope analysis to date the terraces and the incision history (Trip 6), and Tertiary lithology and paleontology of the Chesapeake Bay region (Trip 9). Trip 8 takes advantage of the rich Civil War history of this region to look at the role that geology played in the strategies and outcome of the Battle of Fredericksburg. This guidebook is the result of much hard work by many individuals. The editors wish to thank the field trip leaders and authors, the technical reviewers, and Nancy Stamm of ths USGS Geologic Names Committee. We also owe a very special thanks to Linda Gundersen, Chief Scientist, Geologic Discipline, USGS, who provided funding for the guidebook.

Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC↗
USGS2005

Water resources and the urban environment, lower Charles River watershed, Massachusetts, 1630-2005

The Charles River, one of the Nation’s most historically significant rivers, flows through the center of the Boston metropolitan region in eastern Massachusetts. The lower Charles River, downstream of the original head of tide in Watertown, was originally a productive estuary and important source of fish and shellfish for the Native Americans of the region. This portion of the river has an exceptionally long and colorful human history. In 1615, the explorer Captain John Smith gave the river its modern name, in honor of young Prince Charles of England. In 1617–18, the Native American community of the watershed was decimated by an epidemic, after having continuously occupied the area for the previous 4,000 years. In 1630, the first large group of English settlers, led by John Winthrop, set foot on the Shawmut Peninsula at the mouth of the river, and established the town of Boston. In the 1630s, the first printing press, public park, public school, and college in the English colonies were all established on the banks of the Charles River. Almost immediately, the settlers of Boston and adjacent towns also began to modify the landscape and water resources of the watershed. Perhaps the most important type of landscape alteration in the watershed was the filling of the extensive salt marshes and tidal flats of the estuary downstream of Watertown. This landmaking activity along the lower Charles River began in the mid-1600s, and did not conclude until the 1950s. In the early 20th century, the estuary mouth was dammed, creating a freshwater basin in the lower 9.5 miles of the river. A system of parks and parkways was built along the banks of the impounded river. In addition to the mainstem river, virtually all of the remaining water resources in the watershed have also been altered. Most of the river’s tributaries, for example, were culverted, or placed into tunnels, and many of the ponds and freshwater wetlands in the watershed were filled to facilitate urban development. One additional legacy of the river’s long human history is pollution from industry and sewage. By 1875, a total of 43 mills were operating along the lower Charles River between Watertown Dam and Boston Harbor. Thousands of gallons of untreated sewage and industrial wastewater entered the river daily through gravity drains, posing a major threat to public health. Concerted efforts to address the sewage problem began in the late 1870s. By the 1960s, the water quality of the river was significantly improved, yet still not suitable for swimming, fishing, or even boating under most conditions. In 1965, the Charles River Watershed Association was organized and the call to restore the environmental quality of the river and its parklands was heard anew. Passage of the Federal Clean Water Act in 1972 and the subsequent court-ordered reconstruction of the region’s sewage-treatment infrastructure in the 1980s and 1990s (the “Boston Harbor Cleanup”) provided additional impetus to address the river’s remaining pollution problems. In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched the Clean Charles 2005 Initiative, which brought together government agencies, private-sector institutions, and environmental organizations to focus on restoring the river to fishable and swimmable conditions by Earth Day 2005. This initiative has achieved substantial improvements in water quality; sewage discharges to the river, for example, have been largely eliminated. Nevertheless, it is now widely acknowledged that full attainment of water-quality standards will likely depend upon improved public understanding of the watershed, continued efforts to eliminate illicit sewage discharges to the river, and better management of the urban runoff that enters the river both directly and from its many tributary streams.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2008

The Landslide Handbook - A Guide to Understanding Landslides

This handbook is intended to be a resource for people affected by landslides to acquire further knowledge, especially about the conditions that are unique to their neighborhoods and communities. Considerable literature and research are available concerning landslides, but unfortunately little of it is synthesized and integrated to address the geographically unique geologic and climatic conditions around the globe. Landslides occur throughout the world, under all climatic conditions and terrains, cost billions in monetary losses, and are responsible for thousands of deaths and injuries each year. Often, they cause long-term economic disruption, population displacement, and negative effects on the natural environment. Outdated land-use policies may not always reflect the best planning for use of land that is vulnerable to landslides. The reasons for poor or nonexistent land-use policies that minimize the perceived or actual danger and damage potential from geologic hazards are many and encompass the political, cultural, and financial complexities and intricacies of communities. Landslides often are characterized as local problems, but their effects and costs frequently cross local jurisdictions and may become State or Provincial or national problems. Growing populations may be limited in their geographic expansion, except to occupy unstable, steep, or remote areas. Often, stabilizing landslide-scarred areas is too costly, and some inhabitants have no other places to relocate. Fortunately, simple, 'low-tech' precautions and actions can be adopted to at least ensure an individual's immediate safety, and this handbook gives a brief overview of many of these options. We strongly suggest that, where possible, the assistance of professional engineers/geologists or those experienced in the successful mitigation of unstable slopes be consulted before actions are taken. This handbook helps homeowners, community and emergency managers, and decisionmakers to take the positive step of encouraging awareness of available options and recourse in regard to landslide hazard. We provide a list of references, available in print or on the World Wide Web (Internet), that can be used for further knowledge about landslides. We recommend this handbook to managers and decisionmakers in communities in the hope that the information will be disseminated by such officials to other members of those communities. In response to the differing levels of literacy around the globe, we have emphasized visual information through the use of photographs and graphics. We plan to translate the handbook into additional languages as funding permits to further facilitate its use. We welcome comments and critiques and have provided our contact information and the names and addresses of our respective agencies.

Circular↗
USGS1951

Detroit River group in the Michigan basin

This report attempts to correlate the outcropping rocks in the type locality of the Detroit River group with the thick sequence of rocks that has been explored by many drilled wells in the Michigan Basin during the last twenty years. The surface nomenclature as recently revised (Ehlers, 1950) is suggested for the subsurface section in place of the heterogeneous collection of names now used. The present work revises earlier reports by the writer (1945, a, b, c). During the preparation of this report the samples have been examined from more than 300 wells and cores from 9 wells. The writer has also drawn upon the work of Enyert (1949) who wrote a Doctoral thesis on the sandstones of the Detroit River group, and upon Master's theses on various phases of Detroit River stratigraphy written by Cooley (1947), Saunders .(1948), and Tharp (1944). Finally the writer has had the advantage of many consultations in office and field with George V. Cohee of the U. S. Geological Survey, Professors G. M. Ehlers and E. C. Stumm of the University of Michigan, and with other geologists of Michigan and Ontario, especially George D. Lindberg (Sun Oil Company, Toledo), E. J. Baltrusaitis and K. A. Gravelle (Gulf Refining Company, Saginaw), Willard A. Sanger (Pure Oil Company, Clare), Joseph Lindsay and George WinSton (Carter Oil Co. , Grand Rapids), and Charles S. Evans (Union Gas Co. , Chatham, Ontario). It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help received from these geologists and to thank them for it. The surface and subsurface sections through the Detroit River group in Canada are not included in this report.

Michigan↗
USGS2020

USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory news media management guide — General protocols and templates

This guide describes general protocols and provides templates for news media management at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO) and is intended for use by the CVO scientist-in-charge, communications staff, scientists, and guest communications colleagues. This public version, with CVO names and contact information removed, may be useful to other agencies developing their own protocols and templates. This guide evolved from a smaller document hastily assembled out of necessity during the complex and overwhelming news media interest in the 2004–2008 Mount St. Helens eruption. News media interest exceeded the need for life-saving crisis communication and foretold of the need for future multi-faceted and well-coordinated news media and social media responses during future volcanic events. This guide accompanies the USGS Volcano Science Center’s (VSC’s) general guidelines and protocols for how communications staff at all VSC observatories will work together to respond to news media requests. The protocols and templates are applicable to (1) normal conditions when CVO has an opportunity to be proactive with its messages and to raise general awareness, (2) general responses to news media and TV documentary inquiries, (3) intense news media interest where the responsibility to communicate information and hazards rests primarily with staff at CVO, and (4) intense and overwhelming news media interest that requires a multiagency response. This guide reflects general protocols in effect at the time of publication. The information will be modified as conditions change. Although “news media” generally refers to traditional outlets such as TV, radio, and newspapers, the protocols used to engage these traditional outlets apply also when responding to bloggers, online news services, and social media comments.

Circular↗
USGS1952

Index of water-resources records in the Delaware River basin to September 30, 1951

This report is an index of all surface-water, ground-water, and quality-of-water data which have been or are now being collected on a continuous or periodic basis, by the U. S. Geological Survey and the cooperating agencies in the Delaware River basin, to September 30, 1951. The index is divided into two principal sections, the surface-water section relating to streams and the ground-water section to wells and springs. Each section contains an index of records on quality of water. All surface-water data in this report are classified by stream name and state. The ground-water data are classified by state and county inasmuch as most ground-water studies and compilations are made on the basis of a county as a unit. Lists of selected publications relating to surface and ground waters appear at the end of the respective sections. These lists include not only most of the publications issued or prepared by the Geological Survey, but also a representative group of publications prepared elsewhere, particularly reports concerned with large parts of, or the entire, basin. Those Federal, State, and municipal agencies now engaged in cooperative water-resources investigations with the Geological Survey are listed in a section following the ground-water portion of this report. In addition to the data indicated in this index, the Geological Survey has obtained information at many miscellaneous localities throughout the Delaware River basin. Much of this information is available to the public upon application to the Survey field offices, and to facilitate the use of these miscellaneous data, a list of the field offices having

Circular↗
USGS1953

Stratigraphy and structure of outcropping pre-Selma Coastal Plain beds of Fayette and Lamar Counties, Alabama

The Coastal Plain sediments of Fayette and Lamar Counties, Ala., are pre-Selma Late Cretaceous in age and are divided into three mappable units, from oldest to youngest: (i) the Coker formation, (2) the Gordo formation, and (3) a unit composed of the McShan and Eutaw formations undifferentiated. The Coker formation as here defined includes the Cottondale, Eoline, and Coker formations of earlier workers; the name Gordo is used as previously defined. The Coker and Gordo formations constitute the Tuscaloosa group. Structure contours on formational contacts locally show marked irregularities that are partly the result of structural disturbances. Some of these disturbances were probably of post-Morreville (post-Austin) age.

Circular↗
USGS1955

Records of wells drilled for oil and gas in Montana, June 1, 1951 through December 31, 1953

Data concerning about 1, 800 dry holes and selected producing wells drilled in Montana from June 1, 1951, through December 31, 1953, are contained in this circular, which supplements Circular 172 published in 1952. Also included is a table listing the oil and gas fields of Montana. WELLS DRILLED FOR OIL AND GAS IN MONTANA FROM JUNE 1, 1951, THOROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1953 This circular contains data on dry holes and selected producing wells drilled in Montana from June 1, 1951, through December 31, 1953, and supplements Circular 172 published in 1952 showing records of wells drilled prior to June 1, 1951. Table 1 lists the oil and gas fields of Montana (see map OM 130). The list of wells in table 2 has been compiled from information in Geological Survey files and includes most if not all the unsuccessful wildcat test wells and unsuccessful field extension wells drilled from June 1, 1951 to December 31, 1953. It also includes some older but successful field extension wells that had not been listed in Circular 172. Data are tabulated under location, county, field or geologic structure, operator, lease, and well number, elevation, geologic formation (at the surface and lowest formation reached), production or shows of oil or gas, total depth, and status and date. The wells are tabulated by township, range, quarter, and section in the order of townships north-ranges west, townships north-ranges east, townships south-ranges east, and townships south-ranges west. The names entered under 'Field or geologic structure' are those of the productive area or the geologic structure on or near which the wells have been drilled. Ground elevations have been given for wells for which the records indicated the reference point of the elevation. The surface formation and lowest formation reached in the wells are indicated by symbols which are identified on the accompanying explanation of formation symbols (fig. 1). Not all of the nomenclature is in accord with current Geological Survey usage. In the column 'Production or shows of oil and gas' the symbol GS is used for gas shows, OS for oil shows, GOS for shows of both gas and oil, GP for gas production, and OP for oil production. A number following the symbol for a show or production indicates the depth to the top of the zone in which the gas or oil was found. The letter symbol following the number or the hyphen indicates the geologic formation in which the gas or oil occurs. The status and depth of each well is indicated. The letters A, C, and D preceding the date indicate abandoned, completed, or drilling, respectively, in the specified year. Most if not all producing wells that have been abandoned are shown as completed wells. The date of abandonment is the year in which drilling ceased, except for a few wells in which the abandonment was preceded by one or more years of suspended operations. The diagrammatic representation of the succession of geologic formations in Montana (fig. 1) provides identification of the letter symbols used in the tabulation to indicate geologic formations.

Circular↗
USGS1973

CRIB; the mineral resources data bank of the U.S. Geological Survey

The recently established Computerized Resources Information Bank (CRIB) of the U.S. Geological Survey is expected to play an increasingly important role in the study of United States' mineral resources. CRIB provides a rapid means for organizing and summarizing information on mineral resources and for displaying the results. CRIB consists of a set of variable-length records containing the basic information needed to characterize one or more mineral commodities, a mineral deposit, or several related deposits. The information consists of text, numeric data, and codes. Some topics covered are: name, location, commodity information, geology, production, reserves, potential resources, and references. The data are processed by the GIPSY program, which performs all the processing tasks needed to build, operate, and maintain the CRIB file. The sophisticated retrieval program allows the user to make highly selective searches of the files for words, parts of words, phrases, numeric data, word ranges, numeric ranges, and others, and to interrelate variables by logic statements to any degree of refinement desired. Three print options are available, or the retrieved data can be passed to another program for further processing.

Circular↗
USGS1978

Description of CRIB, the GIPSY retrieval mechanism, and the interface to the General Electric MARK III Service : CRIB, the mineral resources data bank of the U.S. Geological Survey--guide for public users, 1977

The U.S. Geological Survey's Computerized Resources Information Bank (CRIB) is being made available for public use through the computer facilities of the University of Oklahoma and the General Electric Company, U.S.A. The use of General Electric's worldwide information-services network provides access to the CRIB file to a worldwide clientele. This manual, which consists of two chapters, is intended as a guide to users who wish to interrogate the file. Chapter A contains a description of the CRIB file, information on the use of the GIPSY retrieval system, and a description of the General Electric MARK III Service. Chapter B contains a description of the individual data items in the CRIB record as well as code lists. CRIB consists of a set of variable-length records on the metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources of the United States and other countries. At present, 31,645 records in the master file are being made available. The record contains information on mineral deposits and mineral commodities. Some topics covered are: deposit name, location, commodity information, description of deposit, geology, production, reserves, potential resources, and references. The data are processed by the GIPSY program, which maintains the data file and builds, updates, searches, and prints the records using simple yet versatile command statements. Searching and selecting records is accomplished by specifying the presence, absence, or content of any element of information in the record; these specifications can be logically linked to prepare sophisticated search strategies. Output is available in the form of the complete record, a listing of selected parts of the record, or fixed-field tabulations. The General Electric MARK III Service is a computerized information services network operating internationally by land lines, satellites, and undersea cables. The service is available by local telephone to 500 cities in North America, Western Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. An interface called the 'foreground driver' is used to link the GIPSY program to the General Electric system.

Circular↗
USGS1979

A study of reservoir characteristics of the Nanushuk and Colville groups, Umiat test well 11, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

Cretaceous sandstones in the Umiat Anticline contain the largest volume of oil discovered to date in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Umiat test well 11, although dry and abandoned, penetrated the most complete sequence of Cretaceous rocks in the Umiat area. Cretaceous formations cored (oldest to youngest) were the Grandstand, Chandler, and Ninuluk Formations of the Nanushuk Group and the Seabee and Prince Creek Formations of the Colville Group. Cores from sandstone beds in each of the formations penetrated were studied to identify the factors influencing porosity and permeability. Based on lithologic, textural, sedimentary-structural, faunal and floral, and regional paleogeographic evidence, the Cretaceous stratigraphic sequence in the Umiat area can be described as complexly interbedded delta-front and delta-plain facies (named the Umiat delta). The Grandstand Formation and Killik Tongue of the Chandler Formation represent one thick progradational sequence of delta-front and delta-plain facies, respectively. This sequence was followed by deposition of transgressive marine facies of the Ninuluk and Seabee Formations, which were in turn overlain by another progradational delta-plain facies, the Tuluvak Tongue of the Prince Creek Formation. The delta-front sandstone of the Grandstand Formation is well-sorted, fine-grained to very fine grained, angular to subangular chert arenite and phyllarenite. Authigenic cements include dolomite, calcite, siderite, quartz overgrowth, kaolinite, chert, pyrite, and possibly some small flakes of chlorite. The source terrane was southwest of Umiat and, on the basis of the aforementioned petrographic evidence, consisted of low-grade metamorphic rocks and possibly sandstone and cherty limestone. The weighted average porosity, based on well-log analyses, for the lower part of the Grandstand Formation is 15.1 percent and for the upper part is 15.6 percent; the weighted average permeability is 58.6 md for the lower part and 167 md for the upper part. The average size of visible pores is about 50 ?m. A linear relationship was established between permeability and porosity for sandstone samples from depths less than 405 m and greater than 644 m; the average permeability of these intervals can be estimated with reasonable accuracy not only for the Grandstand but also for the Tuluvak, Seabee, and Killik. The delta-front, delta-plain marginal facies of the Killik Tongue of the Chandler Formation includes sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal. Sandstone samples studied petrographically are similar to those of the Grandstand Formation; the delta prograded northeasterly across the Umiat area and the source terrane for the sediments remained the same. Well-log analyses indicate that the weighted average porosity for the Killik Tongue is 16.4 percent and the weighted average permeability is 96.2 md. The delta-front sandstone of the Ninuluk Formation is similar to that of the Grandstand and Killik, but is moderately sorted and contains less detrital quartz and significantly more metamorphic rock fragments than chert fragments. Sandstone in the upper part of the formation contains a considerable amount of calcite. Visible pores average about 35 ?m in size. The weighted average porosity for the Ninuluk Formation, based on well-log analyses, is 12.6 percent; the weighted average permeability is 10.7 md. The Seabee Formation is primarily shale deposited in an open-marine environment; sandstone units in the Seabee overlie and are overlain by black marine shale. The mineralogy of these sandstone units differs markedly from that of the older formations. The sandstones are characterized by an abundance of volcanic rock fragments, high content of volcanic plagioclase feldspar, and low content of detrital quartz. Quartz, chert, phyllite, and metaquartzite all appear to be the same petrographically as in the Nanushuk Group. Abundant chlorite and smectite reduce permeability and make sandstones

Circular↗
USGS1986

USGS research on energy resources, 1986; program and abstracts

The extended abstracts in this volume are summaries of the papers presented orally and as posters in the second V. E. McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy Resources, entitled "USGS Research on Energy Resources-1986." The Forum has been established to improve communication between the USGS and the earth science community by presenting the results of current USGS research on nonrenewable resources in a timely fashion and by providing an opportunity for individuals from other organizations to meet informally with USGS scientists and managers. It is our hope that the McKelvey Forum will help to make USGS programs more responsive to the needs of the earth science community, particularly the mining and petroleum industries, and Win foster closer cooperation between organizations and individuals. The Forum was named after former Director Vincent E. McKelvey in recognition of his lifelong contributions to research, development, and administration in mineral and energy resources, as a scientist, as Chief Geologist, and as Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Forum will be an annual event, and its subject matter will alternate between mineral and energy resources. We expect that the format will change somewhat from year to year as various approaches are tried, but its primary purpose will remain the same: to encourage direct communication between USGS scientists and the representatives of other earth-science related organizations. Energy programs of the USGS include oil and gas, coal, geothermal, uranium-thorium, and oil shale; work in these programs spans the national domain, including surveys of the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone. The topics selected for presentation at this McKelvey Forum represent an overview of the scientific breadth of USGS research on energy resources. They include aspects of petroleum occurrence in Eastern United States rift basins, the origin of magnetic anomalies over oil fields, accreted terranes and energy-resource implications, coal quality, geothermal energy sources, integrated geology and chemistry in uranium-deposit studies, and interpretations of sea-floor geology seen in reconnaissance-scale sidescan-sonar mosaics of the Gulf of Mexico and west coast Exclusive Economic Zone. Data are presented that are being used in building models of geothermal energy settings, basin histories, and the occurrence of energy resources. In addition to the technical sessions presenting the results of USGS research, each congressionally mandated USGS Mineral Resource Program has a display outlining plans and progress. We are all excited about this continuing opportunity to disseminate and discuss our research with our colleagues in industry and academia, and we welcome your suggestions on improving this series of Forums.

Circular↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) in the Conterminous United States: Artificial Drainage (1992) and Irrigation Types (1997)

This tabular dataset represents the estimated area of artificial drainage for the year 1992 and irrigation types for the year 1997 compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source datasets were derived from tabular National Resource Inventory (NRI) datasets created by the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995, 1997). Artificial drainage is defined as subsurface drains and ditches. Irrigation types are defined as gravity and pressure. Subsurface drains are described as conduits, such as corrugated plastic tubing, tile, or pipe, installed beneath the ground surface to collect and/or convey drainage. Surface drainage field ditches are described as graded ditches for collecting excess water. Gravity irrigation source is described as irrigation delivered to the farm and/or field by canals or pipelines open to the atmosphere; and water is distributed by the force of gravity down the field by: (1) A surface irrigation system (border, basin, furrow, corrugation, wild flooding, etc.) or (2) Sub-surface irrigation pipelines or ditches. Pressure irrigation source is described as irrigation delivered to the farm and/or field in pump or elevation-induced pressure pipelines, and water is distributed across the field by: (1) Sprinkle irrigation (center pivot, linear move, traveling gun, side roll, hand move, big gun, or fixed set sprinklers), or (2) Micro irrigation (drip emitters, continuous tube bubblers, micro spray or micro sprinklers). NRI data do not include Federal lands and are thus excluded from this dataset. The tabular data for drainage were spatially apportioned to the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD, Kerie Hitt, written commun., 2005) and the tabular data for irrigation were spatially apportioned to an enhanced version of the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCDe, Nakagaki and others 2007) The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geological Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: Average Atmospheric (Wet) Deposition of Inorganic Nitrogen, 2002

This data set represents the average atmospheric (wet) deposition, in kilograms per square kilometer, of inorganic nitrogen for the year 2002 compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set for wet deposition was from the USGS's raster data set atmospheric (wet) deposition of inorganic nitrogen for 2002 (Gronberg, 2005). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years (2007-2008), an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) for the Conterminous United States: Base-Flow Index

This tabular data set represents the mean base-flow index expressed as a percent, compiled for every catchment in NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. Base flow is the component of streamflow that can be attributed to ground-water discharge into streams. The source data set is Base-Flow Index for the Conterminous United States (Wolock, 2003). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18.

Data Series↗
USGS2010

Attributes for NHDPlus Catchments (Version 1.1) in the Conterminous United States: Bedrock Geology

This data set represents the area of bedrock geology types in square meters compiled for every catchment of NHDPlus for the conterminous United States. The source data set is the "Geology of the Conterminous United States at 1:2,500,000 Scale--A Digital Representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map" (Schuben and others, 1994). The NHDPlus Version 1.1 is an integrated suite of application-ready geospatial datasets that incorporates many of the best features of the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Elevation Dataset (NED). The NHDPlus includes a stream network (based on the 1:100,00-scale NHD), improved networking, naming, and value-added attributes (VAAs). NHDPlus also includes elevation-derived catchments (drainage areas) produced using a drainage enforcement technique first widely used in New England, and thus referred to as "the New England Method." This technique involves "burning in" the 1:100,000-scale NHD and when available building "walls" using the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The resulting modified digital elevation model (HydroDEM) is used to produce hydrologic derivatives that agree with the NHD and WBD. Over the past two years, an interdisciplinary team from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and contractors, found that this method produces the best quality NHD catchments using an automated process (USEPA, 2007). The NHDPlus dataset is organized by 18 Production Units that cover the conterminous United States. The NHDPlus version 1.1 data are grouped by the U.S. Geologic Survey's Major River Basins (MRBs, Crawford and others, 2006). MRB1, covering the New England and Mid-Atlantic River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 1 and 2. MRB2, covering the South Atlantic-Gulf and Tennessee River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 3 and 6. MRB3, covering the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Souris-Red-Rainy River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 4, 5, 7 and 9. MRB4, covering the Missouri River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 10-lower and 10-upper. MRB5, covering the Lower Mississippi, Arkansas-White-Red, and Texas-Gulf River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 8, 11 and 12. MRB6, covering the Rio Grande, Colorado and Great Basin River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Units 13, 14, 15 and 16. MRB7, covering the Pacific Northwest River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 17. MRB8, covering California River basins, contains NHDPlus Production Unit 18

Data Series↗