Charleston Quadrangle NURE HSSR Study

OFR 97-492: Charleston 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.]

West Virginia
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 864 stream-sediment, 884 surface-water, and 1,205 ground-water samples were collected within the Charleston 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 837 sediment and 2,087 water samples from the Charleston 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)].

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 7 stream-sediment, 6 surface-water, and 10 ground-water samples were collected within the Charleston 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 all 7 sediment and all 16 water samples from the Charleston 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)].

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

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 Charleston quadrangle samples.

*Combination of laboratories that analyzed samples for the Charleston quadrangle.*
Laboratory Analysis	Sediments	Waters
Only SRL	844	2,103
None	27	2
Total Samples	871	2,105
Total Data Records	871	2,105

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

*Summary of Charleston quadrangle sample types.*
Sediment Sample Type	Number of Samples	Water Sample Type	Number of Samples
Wet Streams	871	Streams	890
		Wells	1,001
		Springs	214
Total Sediments	871	Total Waters	2,105

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

Sediment Samples

SR1: Savannah River Neutron Activation Analysis - Neutron Counting of sediments for U.
SR2: Savannah River Neutron Activation Analysis of sediments for Al, Ce, Dy, Eu, Fe, Hf, La, Lu, Mn, Na, Sc, Sm, Th, Ti, V, and Yb. (Note: Au values were reported later for this method.)

Water Samples

SR4: Savannah River Neutron Activation Analysis - Neutron Counting of waters for U.
SR5: Savannah River Neutron Activation Analysis of waters for Al, Br, Cl, Dy, F, Mn, Na, and V. (Note: Mg may also be reported by this method.)

Discussion of the Reformatting Process for Charleston Quadrangle

Sediment Records
The Charleston quadrangle sediment data consist of reformatted records from the Ohio portion of the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)] along with reformatted 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 comparison and reformatting stages for the Charleston quadrangle sediment data:

One stream-sediment sample was collected at a latitude of exactly 38°N, the dividing line between the Charleston quadrangle and the Bluefield quadrangle and reported in the West Virginia State files. The record was assigned to the Charleston quadrangle.
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.
An unlikely sample collection date was found for one sample. This date was removed from the SAMPDAT field and the original SAMPDAT value with the most likely correct value was added as a comment to the REFORMAT field.
The latitude and longitude coordinates for 1 stream-sediment sample collected within Webster County, West Virginia was not found in the data during the reformatting process. The records for this sample cannot be retrieved on a geographical basis.
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 Charleston quadrangle water data consist of reformatted records from the Ohio portion of the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)] along with reformatted 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 Clarksburg quadrangle water data:

One stream-water sample was collected at a latitude of exactly 38°N, the dividing line between the Charleston quadrangle and the Bluefield quadrangle and reported in the West Virginia State files. The record was assigned to the Charleston quadrangle.
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.
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 water data file.
The latitude and longitude coordinates for 7 well water samples collected within Boone(1), Clay(1), Fayette(1), Greenbriar(2), Roane(1), and Webster(1) Counties in West Virginia were not found in the data during the reformatting process. The records for these 7 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).

Charleston Quadrangle Sediment Data - 870 records
Charleston Quadrangle Water Data - 2,098 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 Charleston quadrangle is complete and includes samples from Meigs County in Ohio; and Barbour, Boone, Braxton, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Gilmer, Greenbriar, Jackson, Kanawha, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Putnam, Randolph, Roane, Upshur, Webster, and Wirt 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.

Twenty-seven sediment samples and two water samples within the Charleston 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
West Virginia	Calhoun	Sediment	1	39
West Virginia	Clay	Sediment	2	46
West Virginia	Clay	Water	2	105
West Virginia	Kanawha	Sediment	9	96
West Virginia	Pocahantas	Sediment	3	43
West Virginia	Roane	Sediment	3	60
West Virginia	Webster	Sediment	9	46

Other NURE Geochemical Data for the Charleston Quadrangle

None found.

Charleston Quadrangle NURE Bibliography

Fay, W.M., and Cook, J.R., 1982, Gold analyses by neutron activation from SRL NURE samples: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-81-141-38, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-135(82), 45 p.
Fay, W.M., Sargent, K.A., and Cook, J.R., 1982, Data report: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-81-146-23, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-103(82), 43 p.
Fay, W.M., Sargent, K.A., and Cook, J.R., 1982, Data report: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-81-146-25, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-105(82), 41 p.

Links Within Open-File Report 97-492

Back to West Virginia NURE data
Back to Ohio NURE data
Back to 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

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior \| U.S. Geological Survey URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/1997/492/quad/q_chastn.htm Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact Page Last Modified: Wed Dec 7 16:25 EST 2016

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)