USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Field Trip Guide”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2017

A field trip guide to the petrology of Quaternary volcanism on the Yellowstone Plateau

The Yellowstone Plateau is one of the largest manifestations of silicic volcanism on Earth, and marks the youngest focus of magmatism associated with the Yellowstone Hot Spot. The earliest products of Yellowstone Hot Spot volcanism are from ~17 million years ago, but may be as old as ~32 Ma, and include contemporaneous eruption of voluminous mafic and silicic magmas, which are mostly located in the region of northwestern Nevada and southeastern Oregon. Since 17 Ma, the main locus of Yellowstone Hot Spot volcanism has migrated northeastward producing numerous silicic caldera complexes that generally remain active for ~2–4 million years, with the present-day focus being the Yellowstone Plateau. Northeastward migration of volcanism associated with the Yellowstone Hot Spot resulted in the formation of the Snake River Plain, a low relief physiographic feature extending ~750 kilometers from northern Nevada to eastern Idaho. Most of the silicic volcanic centers along the Snake River Plain have been inundated by younger basalt volcanism, but many of their ignimbrites and lava flows are exposed in the extended regions at the margins of the Snake River Plain .

Wyoming↗
USGS2020

Foreward: Geology Field Trips in and around the U.S. Capital

The first annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) was held in 1888 in Ithaca, New York (Fairchild, 1932), but official Sections of GSA formed much later. During the spring of 1949, a symposium in Knoxville, Tennessee, on mineral resources of the southeastern United States became the catalyst for the creation of the Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America (King, 1964), and the first annual meeting of the Southeastern Section was held in 1952 in Roanoke, Virginia (Wilson, 1954). The Northeastern Section formed much later, and its first annual meeting was held in 1966 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Socolow, 1968). At all of these section meetings, field trips have been important venues for geologists and especially students to gather together, examine rocks in the field, and discuss ideas. These field trips have been especially important at combined section meetings because they provide settings for geologists who are experienced in one geographic region to examine and compare the geology of other regions. The first combined meeting of the Southeastern and Northeastern sections occurred in 1976 in Arlington, Virginia. Since then, the Southeastern and Northeastern sections have met together on numerous occasions, including 1982 in Washington, DC; 1991 in Baltimore, Maryland; 2004 in Tysons Corner, Virginia; and 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland. Since the first combined section meeting in 1976, there has been a gradual increase in the role of technology in geology field studies. In fact, during the past several decades there has been an increase in emphasis in our society on the instrumental component of science, the goal of which is operational techniques to do or control things, and a corresponding decrease in emphasis on the natural philosophy component of science, the goal of which is a greater understanding of the natural world (Dear, 2006). The modern education acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), for example, is often used as a catch-all term that implies that science and technology are relatively synonymous, and implies that greater technology leads automatically to greater understanding of the natural world. This assumption, however, is not always valid (Dear, 2006), and technology should not be promoted as a substitute for field experiences. Technology can be a tool that leads to greater understanding of the natural world, but not all Science uses technology as a means of providing greater understanding. The benefits of new technologies include: (1) data of greater resolution; and (2) greater efficiency of capturing, storing, and visualizing data. The risks of new technologies include: (1) an overabundance of data, some of which may be of little value; (2) less time available for analysis of data, if geologists become occupied primarily with capturing and storing data; and (3) errors that arise from complacency and the perception that field-checking may not be necessary. In other words, there is a risk that a glut of data and vast amounts of time devoted to the capturing and storing of data may result in a reduced interest and (or) willingness to field-check data. In the spirit of the early GSA section meetings, we feel that there are still enormous advantages to conducting geology field trips in conjunction with traditional meeting presentations and posters. In 2020, with this current combined Southeastern and Northeastern section meeting in Reston, Virginia, we have assembled eight different field trips that cover a wide range of territory in and around the Nation’s capital. These field trip localities include the immediate vicinity of Washington, DC, as well as various locations in nearby areas of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. The physiographic provinces include Mesozoic Rift Basins, the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the Valley and Ridge, and the Allegheny Plateau of the Appalachian Basin. The field trip sites exhibit a wide range of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, as well as rocks with a wide range of geologic ages from the Mesoproterozoic to the Holocene. We hope that this guidebook provides new motivation for geologists to examine rocks in the field, to discuss ideas with colleagues in the field, and to avoid becoming complacent. The editors of this volume would like to thank the authors of the different field trip guides, the field trip leaders, and all of the reviewers who made suggestions for improving the field trip manuscripts. The editors would also like to thank Elle Derwent of GSA for her logistical help and guidance regarding the field trips, and April Leo and the staff of the GSA Publications Department for seeing this book through to publication.

Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia↗
USGS2020

A transect through Vermont's most famous volcano - Mount Ascutney

The Cretaceous Ascutney Mountain igneous complex affords a classic exposure of the White Mountain Igneous Suite. Often called Vermont’s most famous volcano, Mount Ascutney (elev. 3,144 feet, 958 m) stands as a prominent monadnock in the Connecticut River Valley. The mountain often serves as an inspirational landmark, as it does when viewed from locations throughout the valley including the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site (Walsh, 2017). The Ascutney Mountain igneous complex (Ratcliffe and others, 2011) consists of several mafic to felsic nested plutons including gabbro-diorite exposed at Little Ascutney to the west, and the Ascutney Mountain stock composed of syenite, granite, and related volcanic rocks underlying the main summit to the east (Fig. 1) (Schneiderman, 1989, 1991). Foland and Faul (1977) and Foland and others (1985) dated the gabbro-diorite complex at 125.5 to 122.2 Ma by K-Ar on biotite and by whole rock Rb/Sr, and dated the syenite-granite complex at 123.2 to 121.4 Ma by K-Ar on biotite. During the field trip we will visit the host rocks south of the mountain and the main rocks types of the Ascutney Mountain stock exposed near the summit and along the Mount Ascutney toll road. Mount Ascutney is the classic location where Daly (1903) discussed the evidence for piecemeal stoping as a pluton emplacement mechanism. This theory was later modified to favor cauldron subsidence, or ring-fracture stoping, as an alternative mode of emplacement (Chapman and Chapman, 1940). Our new mapping (Walsh and others, in press), which supersedes an earlier provisional study (Walsh and others, 1996a, b), supports the cauldron subsidence model, and shows that the main Ascutney Mountain stock is a funnel shaped composite pluton in agreement with geophysical data (Daniels, 1990). This field guide will primarily highlight the results of the new geologic mapping. This field guide is modified from a field trip presented in 2017 (Walsh, 2017). Additional stops have been added to examine the host rocks in the region south of the Ascutney Mountain stock. Two hikes are planned as part of this trip. Other NEIGC field trip guides to Mount Ascutney include Stoiber (1954) and Schneiderman (1988).

Vermont↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, October 19–20, 2021

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other type of aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2021), eight KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. This workshop is the first virtual workshop. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst-related studies. The field trip guide is included in the proceedings volume even though the field trip will not occur in person.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

Mass Wasting Following the 2002 Missionary Ridge Fire near Durango, Colorado, a Field Trip Guidebook

This field trip guide focuses on mass wasting following the 2002 Missionary Ridge fire near Durango, Colorado. We prepared this guide to accompany a May 4, 2006, field trip during the second Roy J. Shlemon Specialty Conference, which was held in Durango, Colorado, May 3-5. The conference, entitled Mass Wasting in Disturbed Watersheds, was sponsored by the Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists (AEG) and the AEG Foundation. The objective of this Shlemon Conference was to bring together practitioners and researchers to define the current state of practice and identify unresolved problems with regard to the prediction and mitigation of mass wasting in disturbed watersheds. The one-day field trip begins and ends in Durango. Many of the field trip stops are at debris-flow fans around the periphery of the burn area, but one stop examines landslide activity in the burn area that initiated during spring 2005 snowmelt within a dormant, deep-seated landslide, as well as an erosion/debris-flow mitigation effort in a drainage basin above Lemon Reservoir. Also provided are descriptions of the Missionary Ridge fire, the geologic and climatic setting of the field-trip area, and the general effects of wildfire on watersheds.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Pinedale glacial history of the upper Arkansas River valley: New moraine chronologies, modeling results, and geologic mapping

This field-trip guide outlines the glacial history of the upper Arkansas River valley, Colorado, and builds on a previous GSA field trip to the area in 2010. The following will be presented: (1) new cosmogenic 10 Be exposure ages of moraine boulders from the Pinedale and Bull Lake glaciations (Marine Isotope Stages 2 and 6, respectively) located adjacent to the Twin Lakes Reservoir, (2) numerical modeling of glaciers during the Pinedale glaciation in major tributaries draining into the upper Arkansas River, (3) discharge estimates for glacial-lake outburst floods in the upper Arkansas River valley, and (4) 10 Be ages on flood boulders deposited downvalley from the moraine sequences. This research was stimulated by a new geologic map of the Granite 7.5′ quadrangle, in which the mapping of surficial deposits was revised based in part on the interpretation of newly acquired LiDAR data and field investigations. The new 10 Be ages of the Pinedale terminal moraine at Twin Lakes average 21.8 ± 0.7 ka ( n = 14), which adds to nearby Pinedale terminal moraine ages of 23.6 ± 1.4 ka ( n = 5), 20.5 ± 0.2 ka ( n = 3), and 16.6 ± 1.0 ka ( n = 7), and downvalley outburst flood terraces that date to 20.9 ± 0.9 ka ( n = 4) and 19.0 ± 0.6 ka ( n = 4). This growing chronology leads to improved understanding of the controls and timing of glaciation in the western United States, the modeling of glacial-lake outburst flooding, and the reconstruction of paleotemperature through glacier modeling.

Arkansas River valley↗
USGS2008

Where's the Hayward Fault? A green guide to the fault

This report describes self-guided field trips to one of North America's most dangerous earthquake faults: the Hayward Fault. Locations were chosen because of their easy access using mass transit and/or their significance relating to the natural and cultural history of the East Bay landscape. This field-trip guidebook was compiled to help commemorate the 140th anniversary of an estimated M 7.0 earthquake that occurred on the Hayward Fault at approximately 7:50 AM, October 21st, 1868. Although many reports and on-line resources have been compiled about the science and engineering associated with earthquakes on the Hayward Fault, this report has been prepared to serve as an outdoor guide to the fault for the interested public and for educators. The first chapter is a general overview of the geologic setting of the fault. This is followed by ten chapters of field trips to selected areas along the fault, or in the vicinity, where landscape, geologic, and man-made features that have relevance to understanding the nature of the fault and its earthquake history can be found. A glossary is provided to define and illustrate scientific term used throughout this guide. A ?green? theme helps conserve resources and promotes use of public transportation, where possible. Although access to all locations described in this guide is possible by car, alternative suggestions are provided. To help conserve paper, this guidebook is available on-line only; however, select pages or chapters (field trips) within this guide can be printed separately to take along on an excursion. The discussions in this paper highlight transportation alternatives to visit selected field trip locations. In some cases, combinations, such as a ride on BART and a bus, can be used instead of automobile transportation. For other locales, bicycles can be an alternative means of transportation. Transportation descriptions on selected pages are intended to help guide fieldtrip planners or participants choose trip destinations based on transportation options, interests, or special needs.

California↗
USGS2014

Stitching the western Piedmont of Virginia: Early Paleozoic tectonic history of the Ellisville Pluton and the Potomac and Chopawamsic Terranes

The theme of the 2014 Virginia Geological Field Conference is the tectonic development, economic geology, and seismicity of the western Piedmont of Louisa County, Virginia. It is timely for the conference to turn its attention here, for during the past decade these aspects of western Piedmont geology have garnered the renewed attention of researchers. In terms of regional tectonics, it has been hypothesized that the major structure in the region, the Chopawamsic fault system, represents the most significant boundary in the Appalachian orogen, the main Iapetan suture (Hibbard et al., 2014). Economically, recent elevated market values of metals— particularly that of gold—has spurred reconsideration of the economic geology of the western Piedmont. Finally, the August 23, 2011, M5.8 earthquake, with its epicenter in our field area, startled the North American east coast and has revived awareness of the seismic potential of the region. This renewed interest in the geology of the western Piedmont of north-central Virginia has led to new detailed bedrock mapping, detailed surficial mapping, high-resolution UPb TIMS zircon geochronology, U-Pb LA-ICPMS detrital zircon geochronology, radiogenic isotope geochemistry, major/minor/REE geochemistry, and geophysical studies (e.g. Bailey et al., 2005, 2008; Bailey and Owens, 2012: Berti et al., 2012; Burton et al., 2014; Burton, in progress; Harrison, 2012; Horton et al., 2010, in press; Hughes, 2010, 2014; Hughes et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2014, in press a, in press b; Malenda, in progress; Owens et al., 2013; Spears and Gilmer 2012; Spears et al. 2013, Terblanche, 2013; Terblanche and Nance, 2012). A host of institutions have taken part in the research, including North Carolina State University, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Tech, Lehigh University, and the College of William and Mary. Many of these investigations remain active. The majority of the data presented herein is the product of research conducted from 2010 to 2014 by geologists at North Carolina State University. This field trip guide is intended to complement a Geological Society of America field guide (Hughes et al., 2014) that covers the western Piedmont geology along strike to the northeast in the vicinity of Fredericksburg. Geologic mapping and geochronologic and geochemical sampling were coordinated between these two areas as part of a study funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the USGS EDMAP program. Some of the stops in this guide have previously been written up in past field guides (Hughes, 2010; Burton et al., 2014) and are reused here because of their ease of access for large groups and because of new data that update the context and our understanding of the outcrops.

Virginia↗
USGS1987

Field guide to sedimentary structures in the Navajo and Entrada sandstones in southern Utah and northern Arizona

This field-trip guide describes the common sedimentary structures that occur in eolian sands. The outcrops that are described occur in the Navajo and Entrada Sandstones between the areas of Page, Arizona and St. George, Utah (figure I), but the sedimentary structures of these two sandstones are typical of most eolian deposits. The main part of the guide discusses the geologic setting and the origin of the various structures, and the road log discusses which structures are best displayed at selected outcrops.

Arizona, Utah↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group proceedings, Nashville, Tennessee, October 22-24, 2024

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists studying groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other aquifer type. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2024), nine KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst related studies. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the workshop and proceedings. The planning committee for the ninth workshop includes Thomas D. Byl (USGS and Tennessee State University), Allan K. Clark (USGS), Laura M. DeMott (USGS), Eve L. Kuniansky (USGS, Emeritus), Benjamin V. Miller (USGS), and Lawrence E. Spangler (USGS, Emeritus). The workshop proceedings are edited by Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler. The field trip guide was produced by Benjamin V. Miller and Brian Ham (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and included in the proceedings from the KIG’s 2021 virtual workshop to be used on the optional field trip held on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

Open-File Report↗