USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Professional Paper”

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 1,045 records · Page 58Linked to original sources

Geology and uranium deposits of the Cochetopa and Marshall Pass districts, Saguache and Gunnison counties, Colorado

The Cochetopa and Marshall Pass uranium districts are in Saguache and Gunnison Counties, south-central Colorado. Geologic mapping of both districts has shown that their structural history and geologic relationships have a bearing on the distribution and origin of their uranium deposits. In both districts, the principal uranium deposits are situated at the intersection of major faults with Tertiary erosion surfaces. These surfaces were buried by early Tertiary siliceous tuffs-- a likely source of the uranium. That uranium deposits are related to such unconformities in various parts of the world has been suggested by many other authors. The purpose of this study is to understand the geology of the two districts and to define a genetic model for uranium deposits that may be useful in the discovery and evaluation of uranium deposits in these and other similar geologic settings. The Cochetopa and Marshall Pass uranium districts produced nearly 1,200 metric tons of uranium oxide from 1956 to 1963. Several workings at the Los Ochos mine in the Cochetopa district, and the Pitch mine in the Marshall Pass district, accounted for about 97 percent of this production, but numerous other occurrences of uranium are known in the two districts. As a result of exploration of the Pitch deposit in the 1970's, a large open-pit mining operation began in 1978. Proterozoic rocks in both districts comprise metavolcanic, metasedimentary, and igneous units. Granitic rocks, predominantly quartz monzonitic in composition, occupy large areas. In the northwestern part of the Cochetopa district, metavolcanic and related metasedimentary rocks are of low grade (lower amphibolite facies). In the Marshall Pass district, layered metamorphic rocks are predominantly metasedimentary and are of higher (sillimanite subfacies) grade than the Cochetopa rocks. Paleozoic sedimentary rocks in the Marshall Pass district range from Late Cambrian to Pennsylvanian in age and are 700 m thick. The Paleozoic rocks include, from oldest to youngest, the Sawatch Quartzite, Manitou Dolomite, Harding Quartzite, Fremont Dolomite, Parting Formation and Dyer Dolomite of the Chaffee Group, Leadville Dolomite, and Belden Formation. In the Cochetopa district, Paleozoic rocks are absent. Mesozoic sedimentary rocks overlie the Precambrian rocks in the Cochetopa district and comprise the Junction Creek Sandstone, Morrison Formation, Dakota Sandstone, and Mancos Shale. In the Marshall Pass district, Mesozoic rocks are absent and were presumably removed by pre-Tertiary erosion. Tertiary volcanic rocks were deposited on an irregular surface of unconformity; they blanketed both districts but have been eroded, away from much of the area. They include silicic ash flows as well as andesitic lava flows and breccias. In the Marshall Pass district, a 20to 20D-m thickness of waterlaid tuff of early Tertiary age indicates the former presence of a lake over much of the district. In the Cochetopa district, faults have a predominantly east-west trend, and the major Los Ochos fault shows displacement during Laramide time. In the Marshall Pass district, the Chester fault is a major north-trending reverse fault along which Proterozoic rocks have been thrust westward over Paleozoic and Proterozoic rocks. Displacement on the Chester fault was almost entirely of Laramide age. Both faults and old erosion surfaces or unconformities are important in the origin of uranium deposits because of their influence on the movement and localization of ore-forming solutions. In the Cochetopa district, all the known uranium occurrences crop out within 100 m of the inferred position of the unconformity surface beneath the Tertiary volcanic rocks. Much of the district was part of the drainage of an ancestral Cochetopa Creek. The principal uranium deposit, at the Los Ochos mine, is localized along the Los Ochos fault and is near the bottom of the paleovalley where the paleovalley crosses the fault. This

Professional Paper↗

Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of Alaska

Mean concentrations of 35 elements, ash yields, and pH have been estimated for samples of sils and other unconsolidated surficial materials from 266 collection locations throughout Alaska. These background values can be applied to studies of environmental geochemistry and health, wildlife management, and soil-forming processes in cold climates and to computation of element abundances on a regional or worldwide scale. Limited data for an additoinal eight elements are also presented. Materials were collected using a one-way, three-level, analysis-of-variance samplling design in which collecting procedures were simplified for the convenience of the many volunteer field workers. The sample collectors were asked to avoid locations of known mineral deposits and obvious contamination, to take samples at a depth of about 20 cm where possible, and to take a replicate sample about 100 m distant from the first sample collected. With more than 60 percent of the samples replicated and 14 percent of the samples split for duplicate laboratory analyses, reliable estimates were made of the variability in element concentrations at two geographic scales and of the error associated with sample handling and laboratory procedures. Mean concentrations of most elements in surficial materials from the state of alaska correspond well with those reported in similar materials from the conterminous United STatess. Most element concentrations and ranges in samples of stream and lake sediments from Alaska, however, as reported in the literature, do not correspond well with those found in surficial materials of this study. This lack of correspondence is attributed to (1) a merger of two kinds ofsediments (stream and lake) for calculating means; (2) elimination from the sediment mean calculations of values below the limit of quantitative determination; (3) analytical methods different from those of the surficial materials study; and (4) most importantly, the inherent differences in chemistry of the materials. The distribution of variability in element concentrations o Alaskan surficial-material samples was, for most elements, largely among sampling locations, with only a samll part of the variability occurring between replicate samples at a location. The geochemical uniformity within sampling locations in Alaska is an expression of uniform geochemical cycling processes within small geographic areas. The concentration values for 35 elements in 266 samples were plotted on maps by symbols representing classes of concentration frequency distributions. These plotted symbols form patterns that may or may not be possible to interpret but nevertheless show differences that are observable at several geographical scales. The largest pattern is one generally low concentrations of many elements in materials from arctic and oceanic tundra regions, as contrasted to their often high concentrations in samples from interior and southeastern Alaska. The patttern for sodium isespecially pronounced. Intermediate-sized patterns are shown, for example, by the generally high values for magnesium and low values for silicon in the coastal forest region of southeastern Alaska. Many elements occur at low concentratoins in samples from the Alaskan peninsula and the Aleutian Islands. The degree of confidence in patterns of element abundance is expected to be in direct proportion to the number of samples included in the area. As the patterns become smaller, the probability increases that the patterns are not reproducible.

Alaska↗

Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Land Management national coal-hydrology program, 1974-84

During the decade 1974-84, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management cooperated on investigations to collect information and to study hydrologic processes related to development and mining of federally owned coal. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted similar investigations related to nonfederally owned coal. As a result of these nationwide investigations, a large quantity of hydrologic information and data has been collected and compiled in more than 500 reports. This report summarizes the major findings and accomplishments that have resulted from data-collection activities, hydrologic studies, and research concerned with the effects of coal mining on water resources. This summary report includes: (1) A description of the Nation's coal and water-resource issues related to coal development, including history, objectives, and design of the coal-hydrology program; (2) a summary of the hydrologic information collected in the major coal provinces and published in more than 500 reports and journal articles; and (3) a summary and application of results obtained from topical studies undertaken throughout the program, including discussions on watershed modeling, salinity modeling, ground-water flow systems, geochemistry of mine spoils, mine drainage, sedimentation, and aquatic biology. A detailed coal-hydrology reference list concludes the report.

continental United States↗

Triassic-Jurassic stratigraphy of the Culpeper and Barboursville basins, Virginia and Maryland

The presence of Late Triassic and Early Jurassic spores and pollen throughout an exposed stratigraphic section has enabled the systematic palynofloral zonation of the entire Culpeper Group, supported in places by characteristic fish zones. Strata of the Culpeper Group range in age from the Late Triassic to the Early Jurassic. The distribution of strata in the Culpeper Group is explained by accumulation of clastic sediments in a closed basin flanked by fault-block mountains that were episodically uplifted and eroded. Deposition within the basin was controlled by subsidence accompanying extensional tectonics during a dominantly semiarid climate punctuated by periods of abundant precipitation. During the late stages of Jurassic deposition of the Culpeper Group, tholeiitic diabase stocks, sills, and dikes (about 195 Ma) extensively intruded the sedimentary rocks and basalt flows and thermally metamorphosed them. The strata in the Culpeper and Barboursville basins were regionally tilted to the west, particularly along the western border faults, which produced steep dips, drag folds, gravity slumping, and slippage along bedding planes; broad, gently southwest plunging folds, and en echelon and strike-slip faults along the western basin margin; and folds and transverse faults within the basins. -from Authors

Virginia, Maryland↗