OFR 97-492: Canton Quadrangle NURE HSSR Study

  About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / Publication: FAQ
National Geochemical Database—Reformatted Data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) Program

By Steven M. Smith
Version 1.40 (2006)

Brief History and Description of Data

[See History of NURE HSSR Program for a summary of the entire program.]

Ohio
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 1,214 stream-sediment, 1,205 surface-water, and 2,049 ground-water samples within 20 counties from east central Ohio as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. Field sampling was conducted during July - August, 1978. Sample coverage included portions of the Canton, Charleston, Clarksburg, Cleveland, Columbus, and Marion 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 597 stream-sediment, 595 surface-water, and 1,106 ground-water samples were collected within the Canton quadrangle.) These samples were sent to SRL for analysis of uranium and additional elements (16 in sediments and 9 in waters). SRL was able to analyze 330 sediments and 3,252 waters from Ohio; this includes 51 sediment and 1,699 water samples from the Canton quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all Ohio samples were released in the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)].

Pennsylvania
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 4,499 stream-sediment, 4,401 surface-water, and 5,734 ground-water samples within 49 counties from Pennsylvania as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. The sediment samples were collected during September - October 1976; July - December 1977; and July - August 1978, and water samples were collected during May - December 1977 and July - August 1978. Sample coverage included portions of the Baltimore, Canton, Clarksburg, Cleveland, Cumberland, Elmira, Harrisburg, Newark, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Warren, Williamsport, and Wilmington 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 221 stream-sediment, 216 surface-water, and 330 ground-water samples were collected within the Canton quadrangle.) These samples were sent to SRL for analysis of uranium and additional elements (16 in sediments and 9 in waters). SRL was able to analyze 4,287 sediments and 10,100 waters from Pennsylvania; this includes 108 sediment and 546 water samples from the Canton quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all Pennsylvania samples were released in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York Data Report [GJBX-106(82)].

SRL sent 3,851 sediment samples from Pennsylvania to an unnamed contract laboratory for "Supplemental Analyses." Supplemental analytical determinations for up to 23 elements were reported for 3,842 of these samples in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York Data Report [GJBX-106(82)]. The digital data file accompanying this report includes Supplemental Analyses for 220 Pennsylvania sediment samples within the Canton quadrangle.

Pennsylvania
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 2,965 stream-sediment, 2,910 surface-water, and 4,060 ground-water samples within 55 counties from West Virginia as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. The sediment samples were collected during May - November 1978 and August - September 1979; water samples were collected during April - August 1977; May - September 1978; and July 1980. Sample coverage included portions of the Baltimore, Bluefield, Canton, Charleston, Charlottesville, Clarksburg, Columbus, Cumberland, Huntington, and Jenkins 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 38 stream-sediment, 38 surface-water, and 50 ground-water samples were collected within the Canton quadrangle.) These samples were sent to SRL for analysis of uranium and additional elements (16 in sediments and 9 in waters). SRL was able to analyze 2,919 sediments and 6,965 waters from West Virginia; this includes 38 sediment and 88 water sample from the Canton quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all West Virginia samples were released in the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia Data Report [GJBX-103(82)].

SRL: Canton Quadrangle
SRL did not release a separate report for the Canton quadrangle.

ORGDP: Canton, Cleveland, Marion, Pittsburgh, and Warren Quadrangles
SRL sent 464 Ohio and 161 Pennsylvania sediment samples to the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP) for analysis of uranium and 31 additional elements. ORGDP released the analytical data for 625 samples in the Canton, Cleveland, Marion, Pittsburgh, and Warren Quadrangles GJBX-80(82) Data Report (A total of 485 samples were from the Canton quadrangle). The site coding information for this data set was summarized in the GJBX-51(82) report.

Gold Analyses
Data for gold analyses of sediments by SRL neutron activation were released in the GJBX-135(82) summary report. The introduction of that report states:

"This report contains previously unreported neutron-activation analyses of gold in sediment samples determined at SRL. These data were not included in the standard SRL NURE data reports because the gold spectrum was not measured in the original analytical procedure and the report format was designed without the gold analyses being included. Gold analyses became available as the analytical procedure was refined, but the report format was not modified to incorporate these data."

Only those sediment samples that had detectable concentrations of gold by neutron activation analysis were given in the GJBX-135(82) report. Sediment samples with concentrations below detection limits were not reported and can only be ascertained by identifying which samples were actually analyzed by neutron activation at SRL.

Summary Tables
Because of the various laboratories and analytical methods used, some SRL samples may have been analyzed once, twice, or not at all. The following table summarizes the analysis of Canton quadrangle samples.

Combination of laboratories that analyzed samples for the Canton quadrangle.
Laboratory Analysis Sediments Waters
Only SRL 84 2,333
Only SRL Supplemental Lab 20 0
Both SRL and SRL Supplemental Labs 107 0
Only ORGDP Lab 386 0
Both SRL and ORGDP Labs 6 0
Both ORGDP and SRL Supplemental Labs 93 0
None 160 2
Total Samples 856 2,335
Total Data Records 955 2,335

The following is a list of all sample types collected and reported for NURE studies in the Canton quadrangle.

Summary of Canton quadrangle sample types.
Sediment Sample Type Number of Samples Water Sample Type Number of Samples
Wet Streams 856 Streams 849
    Wells 1,173
    Springs 313
Total Sediments 856 Total Waters 2,335

These Canton quadrangle samples were analyzed by one or more of the following methods:

Sediment Samples

Water Samples



Discussion of the Reformatting Process for Canton Quadrangle

Sediment Records
The Canton quadrangle sediment data consist of reformatted records from the Ohio portion of the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)], data records from the Pennsylvania portion of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York Data Report [GJBX-106(82)], and data records from the West Virginia portion of the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia Data Report [GJBX-103(82)]. These records were compared and combined with Canton quadrangle records from the ORGDP Canton, Cleveland, Marion, Pittsburgh, and Warren Quadrangles GJBX-80(82) Data Report. Site descriptive information and coordinates were compared for all corresponding records. The following problems were found and addressed during the reformatting process of the Canton quadrangle sediment data:

  1. The SRL and the ORGDP Laboratory each analyzed the same 6 stream-sediment samples from Ohio. Because of overlapping data fields, it was necessary to create two data records for each sample to preserve all the data.
  2. The SRL Supplemental Laboratory and the ORGDP Laboratory each analyzed the same 93 stream-sediment samples from Pennsylvania. Because of overlapping data fields, it was necessary to create two data records for each sample to preserve all the data.
  3. During reformatting, contamination codes for "residential" and "recreation" were found to be missing from each State's CONTAMC field. The presence of one of these two codes was indicated only by a "." (period). The missing codes were assigned a value of "unknown" in the CONTAMC field within the final sediment data file.
  4. The original ORGDP files for the Canton, Cleveland, Marion, Pittsburgh, and Warren quadrangles did not include all of the information about the character of the sample location. This missing information includes observations taken at each site on the stream width, depth, and flow, water color, surrounding vegetation, local relief, weather, and possible contaminants. In addition, the longitude coordinate reported in the ORGDP file only had 3 decimal places instead of the 4 decimal places found in the corresponding records from SRL State files. The missing site descriptive data and the complete longitude value were added to ORGDP records from the corresponding SRL State file records. Sources of data and any problems found are described in the REFORMAT comment field.
  5. An analysis of latitude-longitude site coordinates identified several stream-sediment samples that were missing coordinates, did not plot within expected state, county, or map boundaries, or had differing coordinates in corresponding records. To correct or confirm sample coordinates, the original field collection maps for Tuscarawas County, Ohio were obtained and re-digitized. The newly re-digitized coordinates were added to the database and the coordinates from the original file(s) were recorded in the COORDPRB comment field. When the newly re-digitized coordinates were not significantly different, that confirmation of the site location was also noted in the COORDPRB comment field.
  6. The latitude and longitude coordinates for 5 stream-sediment samples collected within Carroll(1), Columbiana(2), and Jefferson(1) Counties in Ohio; and Ohio(1) County in West Virginia were not found in the data during the reformatting process. The records for these 5 samples cannot be retrieved on a geographical basis.
  7. Gold concentrations from the GJBX-135(82) report were added to the appropriate sediment records. A value of -0.01 (<0.01 ppm Au) was added to all other sediment samples determined to have been analyzed by SRL neutron activation. This value was chosen because 0.01 is the lowest reported gold concentration in the entire report.

Water Records
The Canton quadrangle water data consist of reformatted records from the Ohio portion of the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)], data records from the Pennsylvania portion of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York Data Report [GJBX-106(82)], and data records from the West Virginia portion of the Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia Data Report [GJBX-103(82)]. The following problems were found and addressed during the reformatting process of the Canton quadrangle water data:

  1. The original NURE format for surface-water files did not include much information about the character of the sample location. This missing information includes observations taken at each site on the stream width, depth, and flow, water color, surrounding vegetation, local relief, weather, and possible contaminants. This information is given in records for stream-sediment samples that were collected at the same locations. The available site descriptive information for stream-water sites were compared with the corresponding stream-sediment site records. The missing site descriptive data were then added to stream-water records from the corresponding stream-sediment sample records. Sources of data and any problems found are described in the REFORMAT comment field.
  2. During reformatting, contamination codes for "residential" and "recreation" were found to be missing from each State's CONTAMC field. The presence of one of these two codes was indicated only by a "." (period). The missing codes were assigned a value of "unknown" in the CONTAMC field within the final sediment data file.
  3. An analysis of latitude-longitude site coordinates identified several stream-water samples that were missing coordinates, did not plot within expected state, county, or map boundaries, or had differing coordinates in corresponding records. To correct or confirm sample coordinates, the original field collection maps for Tuscarawas County, Ohio were obtained and re-digitized. The newly re-digitized coordinates were added to the database and the coordinates from the original file(s) were recorded in the COORDPRB comment field. When the newly re-digitized coordinates were not significantly different, that confirmation of the site location was also noted in the COORDPRB comment field.
  4. An analysis of latitude-longitude site coordinates identified several ground-water samples that were missing coordinates, did not plot within expected state, county, or map boundaries, or had differing coordinates in corresponding records. To correct or confirm sample coordinates, the original field collection maps for Belmont County, Ohio were obtained and re-digitized. The newly re-digitized coordinates were added to the database and the coordinates from the original file(s) were recorded in the COORDPRB comment field. When the newly re-digitized coordinates were not significantly different, that confirmation of the site location was also noted in the COORDPRB comment field.
  5. After re-digitizing, four well-water samples from Belmont County, Ohio originally located in the Canton quadrangle now plot in the adjacent Clarksburg quadrangle.
  6. The latitude and longitude coordinates for 10 water samples collected within Carroll(3), Columbiana(2), Jefferson(1), Muskingum(1), and Wayne(1) Counties in Ohio; Washington(1) County in Pennsylvania; and Ohio(1) County in West Virginia were not found in the data during the reformatting process. The records for these 10 samples cannot be retrieved on a geographical basis.


Download The Data

The NURE HSSR data are now available online in two databases: The sediment database (also includes data for soils and some rocks) at http://tin.er.usgs.gov/nure/sediment/ and the water database at http://tin.er.usgs.gov/nure/water/. From these two web sites, NURE HSSR data can be selected, examined, summarized, and downloaded by political boundaries (State and County), by quadrangle (1:250,000-scale, 1:100,000-scale, and 1:63,360-scale for Alaska or 1:24,000-scale for the Lower 48 States), and by hydrologic unit (drainage region, subregion, river basin, or sub-basin). Selected data can be downloaded as a dBase file, a shapefile, an HTML table, or ASCII text (tab- or comma-delimited).

Canton Quadrangle Sediment Data - 950 records
Canton Quadrangle Water Data - 2,325 records



Notes for Data Users

In the eastern United States, SRL collected samples primarily by county. Often, not all counties within a quadrangle were completely sampled. Sample coverage in the Canton quadrangle is complete and includes samples from Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Jefferson, Mahoning, Muskingum, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, and Wayne Counties in Ohio; Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Washington Counties in Pennsylvania; and Brooke, Hancock, Marshall, and Ohio Counties in West Virginia. The laboratory and analytical methods used also may vary by county such that adjacent counties often have very different analytical coverage.

A total of 160 stream-sediment and 2 water samples within the Canton quadrangle were not analyzed by any of the various laboratories. The following table summarizes the locations of those unanalyzed samples.

General locations of unanalyzed samples.
State County Sample Media Unanalyzed Samples Total Samples
Ohio Belmont Sediment 1 41
Ohio Carroll Sediment 22 46
Ohio Columbiana Sediment 16 68
Ohio Coshocton Sediment 6 51
Ohio Coshocton Water 1 135
Ohio Guernsey Sediment 19 52
Ohio Harrison Sediment 3 50
Ohio Holmes Sediment 3 34
Ohio Jefferson Sediment 6 49
Ohio Mahoning Sediment 15 22
Ohio Muskingum Sediment 9 20
Ohio Stark Sediment 9 44
Ohio Summit Sediment 6 7
Ohio Tuscarawas Sediment 42 68
Ohio Wayne Sediment 3 51
Ohio Wayne Water 1 145



Other NURE Geochemical Data for the Canton Quadrangle

None found.



Canton Quadrangle NURE Bibliography



Links Within Open-File Report 97-492

Back to Ohio NURE data
Back to Pennsylvania NURE data
Back to West Virginia NURE data
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning NURE Data
Home Page: USGS National Geochemical Database - NURE HSSR data



Page written by Bryan G. Moravec and Steven M. Smith.
Contact: Steven M. Smith (smsmith@usgs.gov)
Version 1.41: February 23, 2006

USA.gov logo