USGS Home
Contact USGS
Search USGS

About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / Publication: FAQ

Georgia
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 6,092 stream-sediment, 14 surface-water, and 5,990 ground-water samples within 142 counties from the northern two-thirds of Georgia as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. The sediment samples were collected during June - December 1976, April 1977, and April - September 1978, and water samples were collected during January - December 1977 and March - November 1978. Sample coverage included portions of the Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Brunswick, Dothan, Greenville, Macon, Phenix City, Rome, Savannah, Valdosta, and Waycross 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 1,069 stream-sediment, 14 stream-water, and 908 ground-water samples were collected within the Rome 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 5,958 sediments and 5,989 waters from Georgia; this includes 1,067 sediment and 918 water samples from the Rome quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all Georgia samples were released in the Alabama and Georgia Data Report [GJBX-403(81)].

SRL sent 2,956 sediment samples from Georgia to an unnamed contract laboratory for "Supplemental Analyses." Supplemental analytical determinations for up to 23 elements were reported for 2,951 of these samples in the Alabama and Georgia Data Report [GJBX-403(81)]. The digital data file accompanying this report includes Supplemental Analyses for 184 Georgia sediment samples within the Rome quadrangle.

Alabama
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 4,499 stream-sediment, 1,486 surface-water, and 6,204 ground-water samples within 53 counties from the northern two-thirds of Alabama as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. The sediment samples were collected during June - December, 1976 and March 1978 - January 1979, and water samples were collected during January - September, 1977 and December 1977 - March 1979. Sample coverage included portions of the Andalusia, Atlanta, Birmingham, Blytheville, Dothan, Gadsden, Hattiesburg, Meridian, Montgomery, Phenix City, Rome, Tupelo, and West Point 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 196 stream-sediment, 82 surface-water, and 378 ground-water samples were collected within the Rome 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 4,489 sediments and 7,677 waters from Alabama; this includes 195 sediment and 459 water samples from the Rome quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all Alabama samples were released in the Alabama and Georgia Data Report [GJBX-403(81)].

SRL sent 1,476 sediment samples from Alabama to an unnamed contract laboratory for "Supplemental Analyses." Supplemental analytical determinations for up to 23 elements were reported for 1,471 of these samples in the Alabama and Georgia Data Report [GJBX-403(81)]. The digital data file accompanying this report includes Supplemental Analyses for 196 Alabama sediment samples within the Rome quadrangle.

Tennessee
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 3,309 stream-sediment, 1,584 surface-water, and 3,574 ground-water samples within 58 counties from the eastern half and the northwestern corner of Tennessee as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. The samples were collected during June - December, 1976 and March - November, 1978 and included portions of the Blytheville, Chattanooga, Columbia, Corbin, Dyersburg, Gadsden, Johnson City, Knoxville, Nashville, Rome, and Winston-Salem 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 18 stream-sediment, 13 surface-water, and 15 ground-water samples were collected within the Rome 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 2,450 sediments and 5,149 waters from Tennessee; this includes 1 of the sediment and all 28 water samples from the Rome quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all Tennessee samples were released in the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)].

SRL sent 248 sediment samples from Tennessee to an unnamed contract laboratory for "Supplemental Analyses." Supplemental analytical determinations for up to 23 elements were reported for 247 of these samples in the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio Data Report [GJBX-105(82)]. The digital data file accompanying this report does not include Supplemental Analyses for any Tennessee sediment samples within the Rome quadrangle.

North Carolina
Subcontractors for the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) collected at least 6,666 stream-sediment, 295 surface-water, and 5,778 ground-water samples within 100 counties from North Carolina as part of the NURE Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) program. The sediment samples were collected during June - December 1976; July - August 1977; and April - May 1978, and water samples were collected during December 1976 - August 1977 and June - July 1978. Sample coverage included portions of the Beaufort, Charlotte, Chattanooga, Currituck Sound, Florence, Georgetown, Greensboro, Greenville, Johnson City, Knoxville, Manteo, Norfolk, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Rome, Spartanburg, and Winston-Salem 1:250,000-scale quadrangles. (A total of 3 stream-sediment samples were collected within the Rome 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 6,597 sediments and 6,040 waters from North Carolina; this includes all 3 sediment samples from the Rome quadrangle. The analytical and site location data for all North Carolina samples were released in the North and South Carolina Data Report [GJBX-102(82)].

SRL sent 4,677 sediment samples from North Carolina to an unnamed contract laboratory for "Supplemental Analyses." Supplemental analytical determinations for up to 23 elements were reported for 4,660 of these samples in the North and South Carolina Data Report [GJBX-102(82)]. The digital data file accompanying this report does not include Supplemental Analyses records for any North Carolina sediment samples within the Rome quadrangle.

SRL: Rome Quadrangle
Occasionally, SRL released abbreviated reports for quadrangles under their responsibility. These reports include neutron activation analyses done at SRL. An abbreviated report was released for the Rome quadrangle [GJBX-25(81)]. Data tables with analyses are included within the microfiche accompanying this report. Data found in this report appear to be the same data as that found in the state digital data-file. No separate digital data file accompanies this report.

ORGDP: Chattanooga, Columbia, Gadsden, and Rome Quadrangles
SRL sent several Tennessee sediment samples to the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (ORGDP) for analysis of uranium and 31 additional elements. ORGDP released the analytical data for 251 samples in the Chattanooga, Columbia, Gadsden, and Rome Quadrangles GJBX-74(82) Data Report. This report includes data for 7 sediment samples from the Rome 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 Rome quadrangle samples.

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

These Rome 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.)
• SR3-AA: Savannah River (Supplemental Analysis by contract Laboratory) Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy Analysis of sediments for Ag, Ba, Be, Co, Cr, Cu, Mg, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sn, Sr, Y, and Zn.
• SR3-CA: Savannah River (Supplemental Analysis by contract Laboratory) Colorimetric Analysis of sediments for Nb, P, and W.
• SR3-FE: Savannah River (Supplemental Analysis by contract Laboratory) Flame Emission Analysis of sediments for K and Li.
• SR3-XU: Savannah River (Supplemental Analysis by contract Laboratory) Analysis of sediments for hot acid extractable U. (Exact method undetermined)
• SR3-XX: Savannah River (Supplemental Analysis by contract Laboratory) Analysis of sediments for As, Se, and Ca. (Exact method undetermined)
• OR2: Oak Ridge Neutron Activation Analysis of sediments for U.
• OR7: Oak Ridge Emission Spectrochemical Analysis of sediments for Ag, Al, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hf, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Sc, Sr, Th, Ti, V, Y, Zn, and Zr.

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 Rome Quadrangle

Sediment Records
The Rome quadrangle sediment data consist of records from the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Alabama and Georgia [GJBX-403(81)] Data Report combined with Supplemental Analyses from the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Alabama and Georgia [GJBX-403(81)] Data Report. Rome quadrangle records from the Tennessee portion of the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio [GJBX-105(82)] Data Report were combined with records from the ORGDP Chattanooga, Columbia, Gadsden, and Rome Quadrangles GJBX-74(82) Data Report and then added to the sediment file. Rome quadrangle records from the North Carolina portion of the North and South Carolina [GJBX-102(82)] Data Report were also added to the file. Site descriptive information and coordinates were compared for all corresponding records. The following problems were found and addressed during the comparison and reformatting stages for the Rome quadrangle sediment data:

1. One stream-sediment sample was collected at a latitude of exactly 34°N, the dividing line between the Atlanta and Rome quadrangles and reported in the Georgia State files. The data record for this sample was assigned to the Rome quadrangle.
2. Unlikely sample collection dates were found for four samples. These dates were removed from the SAMPDAT field. For each record, the original SAMPDAT value and the most likely correct value was added as a comment to the REFORMAT field.
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 water data file.
4. Five stream-sediment samples were identified with a SRLID in the 300's. All of these samples were missing latitude and longitude coordinates. Evidence from original sample site field notes strongly suggests that these are duplicate samples collected later from a previously sampled 000's series site (i.e. SRLID site number ABCD318S1 is the same location as ABCD018S1). The coordinates from the original 000's series sites were added to the matching 300's records and this change was noted in the REFORMAT and COORDPRB comment fields.
5. The original ORGDP file for the Chattanooga, Columbia, Gadsden, and Rome 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. When combining corresponding SRL and ORGDP records, all of the site descriptive data and the longitude values to 4 decimal places from the SRL data files were preserved in the final database.
6. 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 Cherokee, De Kalb, and Jackson Counties, Alabama; Bartow, Catoosa, Dawson, Fannin, Lumpkin, Paulding, Union, Walker, and Whitfield Counties, Georgia; and Cherokee County, North Carolina 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.
7. After re-digitizing, two stream-sediment samples from Cherokee County, North Carolina originally located in the Rome quadrangle now plot in the adjacent Chattanooga quadrangle.
8. The latitude and longitude coordinates for one sediment sample collected within Gordon County, Georgia were not found in the data during the reformatting process. The record for this sample cannot be retrieved on a geographical basis.
9. 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 Rome quadrangle water data consist of records from the Tennessee portion of the Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio [GJBX-105(82)] Data Report combined with records from the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Alabama and Georgia [GJBX-403(81)] Data Report. The following problems were found and addressed during the comparison and reformatting stages for the Rome 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. Unlikely sample collection dates were found for two samples. These dates were removed from the SAMPDAT field. For each record, the original SAMPDAT value and the most likely correct value was added as a comment to the REFORMAT field.
3. Three ground-water samples were identified with a SRLID in the 700's or 800's. All of these samples were missing latitude and longitude coordinates. Evidence from original sample site field notes strongly suggests that these are duplicate samples collected later from a previously sampled 500/600's series site (i.e. SRLID site number ABCD718R is the same location as ABCD518R). The coordinates from the original 500/600's series sites were added to the matching 700/800's records and this change was noted in the REFORMAT and COORDPRB comment fields.
4. 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 De Kalb and Jackson Counties, Alabama 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. 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 Jackson County, Alabama; and Fannin, Lumpkin, and Polk Counties, Georgia 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. After re-digitizing, one well water sample from Polk County, Georgia originally located in the Atlanta quadrangle now plots in the adjacent Rome quadrangle.

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).

Rome Quadrangle Sediment Data - 1,285 records
Rome Quadrangle Water Data - 1,410 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 Rome quadrangle is complete and includes samples from Cherokee, De Kalb, Etowah, and Jackson Counties in Alabama; Bartow, Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Cobb, Crisp, Dade, Dawson, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Fulton, Gilmer, Gordon, Gwinnett, Lumpkin, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Union, Walker, and Whitfield Counties in Georgia; Cherokee County in North Carolina; and Bradley, Franklin, Hamilton, Marion, and Polk Counties in Tennessee. The laboratory and analytical methods used also may vary by county such that adjacent counties often have very different analytical coverages.

Twelve sediment and six water samples within the Rome quadrangle were not analyzed by any of the various laboratories. The following table summarizes the locations of those unanalyzed samples.

Other NURE Geochemical Data for the Rome Quadrangle

Geology and Mineral Resources Study
A report on the geology and mineral resources of the Rome quadrangle was prepared for the Savannah River Laboratory [GJBX-33(82)]. No geochemical data accompany this report.

Rome Quadrangle NURE Bibliography

• Cook, J.R., and Fay, W.M., 1980, Rome 1° x 2° NTMS area, Georgia and Alabama; Data Report (abbreviated): E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-78-146-6s, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-25(81), 17 p.
• 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., 1981, Data report: Alabama and Georgia: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-81-146-21, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-403(82), 34 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.
• Fay, W.M., Sargent, K.A., and Cook, J.R., 1982, Data report: North and South Carolina: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-81-146-22, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-102(82), 34 p.
• Karfunkel, B.S., compiler, 1981, Geology and mineral resources of the Johnson City, Phenix City, and Rome 1° x 2° NTMS quadrangles: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., SRL Internal Doc. DPST-81-141-10, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-33(82), 81 p.
• Uranium Resource Evaluation Project, 1982, Hydrogeochemical and stream sediment reconnaissance basic data for Chattanooga, Columbia, Gadsden, and Rome quadrangles, Alabama; Tennessee; Georgia; North Carolina: Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn., K/UR-429, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-74(82), 26 p.
• Uranium Resource Evaluation Project, 1982, Supplement to hydrogeochemical and stream sediment reconnaissance basic data reports K/UR-405 and K/UR-408 through K/UR-443 [GJBX-52(82) through GJBX-88(82)]: Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn., K/UR-412, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colo., GJBX-51(82), 25 p.

Links Within Open-File Report 97-492

Back to Georgia NURE data
Back to Alabama NURE data
Back to Tennessee NURE data
Back to North Carolina 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 1.30: September 11, 2001
Version 1.41: February 23, 2006

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/quad/q_rome.htm Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact Page Last Modified: Wed Dec 7 16:15 EDT 2016