DOCSLIB.ORG

Geophysical Survey As a Conservation Tool

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geophysical Survey As a Conservation Tool University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 1999 Geophysical Survey as a Conservation Tool Anne M. Kern Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro Part of the Anthropology Commons Kern, Anne M., "Geophysical Survey as a Conservation Tool" (1999). Nebraska Anthropologist. 118. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/118 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Geophysical Survey as a Conservation Tool AnneM. Kern With the introduction of cultural resource management and the passage offederal preservation legislation more than thirty years ago, American archeology has recognized the need for non­ invasive practices that produce significant, new data while preserving the non-renewable archeological record. In the early I 970s, Thomas Lyons and the National Park Service's Cultural Resource Management Program began to develop a non-invasive paradigm placing new emphasis on remote sensing techniques. Developments in geophysical methods over the past twenty to thirty years allow archeologists to preserve the archeological record, practice Lyons' non-invasive archeology, and collect high-quality data. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of geophysical applications follmvs. "As archeologists are becoming more concerned with cultural resource management, non-destructive techniques such as geophysical surveys are becoming more valuable tools. The shifting focus in American archeology tmvards management and protection of the nonrenewable archeological record has resulted in less destruction of non-threatened sites through excavation. William Lipe, in his 1974 article "A Conservation Model, " stressed this vel}' need" (Lipe 1974). For decades the National Park Service years of experiments with sites such as has been the main federal agency charged Chaco Canyon, Lyons and his office literally with the protection, conservation, and wrote the book on how remote sensing was management of the nation's cultural to be incorporated into cultural resource resources. All federal agencies were so management (Lyons and Avery 1977). charged as a result of legislation in the Lyons advocated a new methodological 1960s and 1970s. It is no surprise, then, that approach for "exploration, discovery, the National Park Service has been at the recording, evaluation, investigation, forefront of promoting the use of non­ monitoring, and management of cultural invasive archeological techniques. For resources" (Lyons and Scovill 1978:3). thirty years it has been refining the Rather than use the imprecise methods of applications of remote sensing and surface survey and subsurface testing, these geophysical methods to study archeological methods should be reserved for site sites with minimal impact. verification instead of site discovery. He points to the flaws in the traditional methods Non-destructive Archeology in the following scene: Thomas Lyons and the National Park Frequently archeologists still Service's Cultural Resource Management in training and with varying degrees Program began studying the applicability of of professional accomplishment and remote sensing to archeology as early as observational prowess walk the 1969 (Lyons and Scovill 1978). Based upon ground Oil site surveys. They 74 visually search for, discover and subsurface complement to the remotely concurrently assess, sift and select a sensed surface data. highly limited number of physical attributes deemed to be adequately Lyons recognized the vital importance descriptive and representative of of remote sensing and geophysical rather obvious classes of techniques for developing a non-destructive archeological and natural archeology. The application of a non­ phenomena. They record mentally destructive archeology is, in tum, vital for massaged observations of these judicious administration and management of physical phenomena in summary cultural resources. Volumes of information fashion in logs, diaries and on about a site can be obtained without invasive printed forms, using imprecise excavation. Multiple surveys can be terminology and syntax in an often conducted while saving the site for future undecipherable scrawl. They plot study and the development of new site locations with Brunton compass technologies. accuracy, a technique that often precludes rediscovery and positive Non-destructive Techniques identification of them at a future date. From this process comes a Several terms have been developed to highly personalized statement about refer to the variety of non-destructive the archeology of an area and the techniques now in use. As noted earlier, the natural environment, a statement remote sensing techniques Lyons began that invariably concludes more experimenting with were of a different surveying, more collecting and more nature than those in use today. Remote excavating of the resources are sensing methods, as they differ from required (Lyons and Scovill geophysical applications, refer to data 1978:4). obtained from a remote platform, such as an airplane, satellite or otherwise elevated His complaints extend to include the instrument. Aerial photography, infrared on-the-spot interpretation involved in and other measurable light in the surface collecting, the inability to replicate electromagnetic spectrum are data types the initial observations once a surface survey obtained in remote sensing (Lyons and is done, the limited nature of the data Avery 1977, Heimmer and DeVore 1995). collected from survey and testing, and the limits of human senses. This dissatisfaction Geophysical prospection implies created a paradigm he termed non­ looking beneath the surface rather than on destructive archeology, which utilized top of it. This is the broadest, most remotely sensed data to explore, discover, inclusive term for all geophysical and record sites. measurements taken to determine the subsurface composition. It includes both Twenty-five to thirty years ago, the non-destructive methods as well as primary tools in remote sensing available to minimally invasive techniques such as Lyons were aerial photography, satellite coring or drilling. The term is used more imagery, infrared data, and photogrammetry often in British than American archeology (Lyons and Scovill 1978). Over the last (Rapp and Hill 1998). decade or two, geophysical techniques have advanced greatly and their applicability has Non-invasive geophysical techniques been tested in archeological settings. fall into two categories, passive and active. Borrowed from geophysics, these techniques Passive methods involve instrumentation measure various physical properties of the that can precisely measure physical subsurface make-up. They provide a properties of the subsurface such as 75 magnetism and gravity. The passive method stressed the objectivity in data collecting most commonly used is some form of a with a geophysical instrument as opposed to magnetic survey. Two magnetic human detection (Lyons and Scovi11 1978). measurements are usually taken for every In sheer quantities, the amount of data point in the survey and the differences or obtained using geophysical instruments wi11 gradients are calculated in order to eliminate be exponentially greater than the amount of natural daily variations in the earth's data amassed after traditional surveying and magnetism. testing. Active techniques involve inducing an The nature of that data is also electric or magnetic field through the important. Geophysical data in digital form introduction of a current. The introductions are easy to store and retrieve. Traditional of acoustic and radar waves are also methods can produce cubic feet of artifacts considered active geophysical methods. and volumes of field notes that require Examples of these methods include: storage in already crowded curation electrical resistivity, electromagnetic facilities (Lynott 1997). Improper storage conductivity, and ground penetrating radar has the potential to damage or destroy (Heimmer and DeVore 1995). artifacts. Once an assemblage has been curated, rarely does it ever re-emerge for Geophysical Advantages further study. Whole collections have been known to disappear into a "curational As stated, the greatest advantage in abyss." Digital data have a greater potential the use of geophysical techniques is their for re-evaluation. The quality of digital data non-destructive nature. To cultural resource is not likely to diminish over the course of managers, this is an attractive quality. They time. Geophysical data are also very are able to obtain usable subsurface data precise. Depending upon the sampling while remaining true to the preservation and strategy, a traditional survey will predict the conservation ethic. By not destroying the location of a fraction of the sites in a given archeological record, the site is preserved area. Geophysical surveys can identify for future study when new technologies every potentially human-made anomaly in become available. Geophysics can give the the same area. Human alterations to the dwindling archeological record extended life landscape, such as ancient roads, trails, and maximize the amount of information agricultural fields or other features without obtainable. an artifactual reflection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018
    Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2019-4 Manuscript under review for journal Solid Earth Discussion started: 15 January 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Bayesian geological and geophysical data fusion for the construction and uncertainty quantification of 3D geological models Hugo K. H. Olierook1, Richard Scalzo2, David Kohn3, Rohitash Chandra2,4, Ehsan Farahbakhsh2,4, Gregory Houseman3, Chris Clark1, Steven M. Reddy1, R. Dietmar Müller4 5 1School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 2Centre for Translational Data Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 3Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 4EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia Correspondence to: Hugo K. H. Olierook ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. Traditional approaches to develop 3D geological models employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative scientific techniques, which do not fully provide quantification of uncertainty in the constructed models and fail to optimally weight geological field observations against constraints from geophysical data. Here, we demonstrate a Bayesian methodology to fuse geological field observations with aeromagnetic and gravity data to build robust 3D models in a 13.5 × 13.5 km region of the Gascoyne Province, Western Australia. Our approach is validated by comparing model results to independently-constrained 15 geological maps and cross-sections produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. By fusing geological field data with magnetics and gravity surveys, we show that at 89% of the modelled region has >95% certainty. The boundaries between geological units are characterized by narrow regions with <95% certainty, which are typically 400–1000 m wide at the Earth’s surface and 500–2000 m wide at depth.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP14 Geophysical Survey
    SSFL Use Only SSFL SOP 14 Geophysical Survey Revision: 0 Date: April 2012 Prepared: C. Werden Technical Review: J. Plevniak Approved and QA Review: J. Oxford Issued: 4/6/2012 Signature/Date 1.0 Objective The purpose of this technical standard operating procedure (SOP) is to introduce the procedures for non-invasive geophysical investigations in areas suspected of being used for disposal of debris or where landfill operations may have been conducted. Specifics of the geophysical surveys will be discussed in the Geophysical Survey Field Sampling Plan Addendum. Geophysical methods that will be used to accurately locate and record buried geophysical anomalies are: . Total Field Magnetometry (TFM) . Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method (FDEM) . Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) TFM and FDEM will be applied to all areas of interest while GPR will be applied only to areas of interest that require further and/or higher resolution of geophysical anomaly. The geophysical investigation (survey) will be conducted by geophysical subcontractor personnel trained, experienced, and qualified in shallow subsurface geophysics necessary to successfully perform any of the above geophysical methods. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the geophysical contractor. 2.0 Background 2.1 Discussion This SOP is based on geophysical methods employed by US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) subcontractor Hydrogeologic Inc. (HGL) while conducted geophysical surveys of portions of Area IV during 2010 and 2011. The Data Gap Investigation conducted as part of Phase 3 identified additional locations of suspected buried materials not surveyed by HGL. To be consistent with the recently collected subsurface information, HGL procedures are being adopted. The areas of interest and survey limits will be determined prior to field mobilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire
    In Cooperation with the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES o Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4183 U.S. Department of the Interior / U.S. Geological Survey The base map on the front cover shows geophysical survey locations overlaying a geologic map of U.S. Geological Survey, Windham, New Hampshire, 1:24,000-scale quadrangle. Geology is by G.S. Walsh and S.F. Clark, Jr. (1999) and lineaments are from Ferguson and others (1997) and R.B. Moore and Garrick Marcoux, 1998. The photographs and graphics overlying the base map are showing, counterclockwise from the left, a USGS scientist using a resistivity meter and surveying equipment (background) to survey the bedrock beneath the surface using a geophysical method called azimuthal square-array direct- current resistivity. In the lower left, this cross section is showing the results of a survey along line 3 in Windham, N.H., using another method called two-dimensional direct-current resistivity. In the lower right, the photograph is showing a bedrock outcrop located between red lines 3 and 4 (on base map) at Windham, in which the fractures and parting parallel to foliation have the same strike as the azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey results, and remotely sensed lineaments (purple and green lines on base map). The upper right graphic shows a polar plot of the results of an azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey at Windham for array 1 (red circle on base map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 3E
    An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION AN INTRODUCTION TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION © 2002 by The right of the Authors to be distributors Blackwell Science Ltd identified as the Authors of this Work Marston Book Services Ltd Editorial Offices: has been asserted in accordance PO Box 269 Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EL with the Copyright, Designs and Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN 25 John Street, London WC1N 2BS Patents Act 1988. (Orders: Tel: 01235 465500 23 Ainslie Place, Edinburgh EH3 6AJ Fax: 01235 465555) 350 Main Street, Malden All rights reserved. No part of MA 02148-5018, USA this publication may be reproduced, The Americas 54 University Street, Carlton stored in a retrieval system, or Blackwell Publishing Victoria 3053,Australia transmitted, in any form or by any c/o AIDC 10, rue Casimir Delavigne means, electronic, mechanical, PO Box 20 75006 Paris, France photocopying, recording or otherwise, 50 Winter Sport Lane except as permitted by the UK Williston,VT 05495-0020 Other Editorial Offices: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (Orders: Tel: 800 216 2522 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH 1988, without the prior
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C130 October 2008 Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008–2009 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, A&C Dietz and Associates, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Acting Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Rail Group Chair Karla H. Karash, Vice President, TranSystems Corporation, Medford, Massachusetts, Public Transportation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Katherine F. Turnbull, Associate Director, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Planning and Environment Group Chair Daniel S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Field Mapping
    Presented at Short Course IX on Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, GDC and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, Nov. 2-23, 2014. Kenya Electricity Generating Co., Ltd. GEOPHYSICAL FIELD MAPPING Anastasia W. Wanjohi, Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd. Olkaria Geothermal Project P.O. Box 785-20117, Naivasha KENYA [email protected] or [email protected] ABSTRACT Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. Geophysical field mapping is the process of selecting an area of interest and identifying all the geophysical aspects of the area with the purpose of preparing a detailed geophysical report. The objective of geophysical field work is to understand all physical parameters of a geothermal field and be able to relate them with geological phenomenons and come up with plausible inferences about the system. Four phases are involved and include planning/desktop studies, reconnaissance, actual data aquisition and report writing. Equipments must be prepared and calibrated well. Geophysical results should be processed, analysed and presented in the appropriate form. A detailed geophysical report should be compiled. This paper presents the reader with an overview of how to carry out geophysical mapping in a geothermal field. 1. INTRODUCTION Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. In lay man’s language, geophysics is all about x-raying the earth and involves sending signals into the earth and monitoring the outcome or monitoring natural signals from the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678)
    Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678) Abstracts of world literature t contained in periodicals, books, and patents OHIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director \ « For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S._ Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 5 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS [The letters in parentheses are those used]to designate the chapters for separate publication] Page <A) Geophysical Abstracts 136, January-March 1949 (nos. 10737-11001). 1 <B) Geophysical Abstracts 137, April-June 1949 (nos. 11002-11201__ 95 <C) Geophysical Abstracts 138, July-September 1949 (nos. 11202-11441). 167 (D) Geophysical Abstracts 139, October-December, 1949 (nos. 11442- 11678....._________________________________________________ 253 Under Departmental orders, Geophysical Abstracts have been published at different times by the Bureau of Mines or the Geological Survey as noted below: 1-86, May 1929-June 1936, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeo­ graphed.] 87, July-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 887. 88-91, January-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 895. 92-95, January-December 1938, Geological Survey Bulletin 909. 96-99, January-December 1939, Geological Survey, Bulletin 915. 100-103, January-December 1940, Geological Survey, Bulletin 925. 104-107, January-December 1941, Geological Survey, Bulletin 932. 108-111, January-December 1942, Geological Survey, Bulletin 939. 112-127, January 1943-December 1946, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeographed.] 128-131, January-December 1947, Geological Survey, Bulletin 957. 132-135, January-December 1948, Geological Survey, Bulletin 959. in Geophysical Abstracts 136 January-March 1949 (Numbers 10737-11001) By V.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site
    EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 248323 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BENNETT'S DUMP SITE BLOOMINGTON PROJECT Bloomington, Indiana CBS Corporation 11 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1384 February 22,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Summary of Field Activities 2 2.1 Site Preparation 2 2.2 Geophysical Survey 3 3.0 Summary of Findings 6 3.1 Electromagnetic and Magnetometer Results 6 3.2 Seismic Refraction Study Results 7 4.0 Conclusions 11 List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Layout Map 3 Geophysical Sample Location Map 4 Generalized Electromagnetic Anomaly Map 5 Lithologic Profiles 6 Bedrock Contour Map 7 Top of Clay Layer Contour Map Appendices A Geosphere Inc. Report B Soil Boring Logs 1.0 INTRODUCTION Previous investigations led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the Bennett's Dump site have identified various electromagnetic anomalies. Since the primary method of site cleanup will involve excavation of portions of the site, a refined understanding of the subsurface conditions was required to aid in planning of future delineation studies. A geophysical survey, including an electromagnetic survey, a magnetometer survey, and a seismic refraction study, were performed at the Bennett's Dump site during the week of December 14,1998. This report summarizes the geophysical survey, presents the geophysicist's findings, and, based on data gathered herein as well as from previous boring projects, provides a summary of the local geology. The complete report of the geophysical results provided by the geophysics contractor is included in Appendix A. The seismic investigation was conducted to provide an understanding of the subsurface structures in areas most likely to contain large amounts of fill.
    [Show full text]
  • SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Annual Meeting
    The 2018 SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Proposed Technical Sessions (Please note, the identified session topics here are not inclusive of all possible near-surface geophysics technical sessions, but have been identified at this point.) Session topic/title Session description and objective Coupled above and below-ground Description: There have been significant advances in a variety of geophysical techniques in the past decades to characterize near- monitoring using geophysics, UAV, surface critical zone heterogeneity, including hydrological and biogeochemical properties, as well as near-surface spatiotemporal and remote sensing dynamics such as temperature, soil moisture and geochemical changes. At the same time, above-ground characterization is evolving significantly – particularly in airborne platforms and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) – to capture the spatiotemporal dynamics in microtopography, vegetation and others. The critical link between near-surface and surface properties has been recognized, since surface processes dictates the evolution of near-surface environments evolve (e.g., topography influences surface/subsurface flow, affecting bedrock weathering), while near-surface properties (such as soil texture) control vegetation and topography. Now that geophysics and airborne technologies can capture both surface and near-surface spatiotemporal dynamics at high resolution in a spatially extensive manner, there is a great opportunity to advance the understanding of this coupled surface and near-surface system. This session calls for a variety of contributions on this topic, including coupled above/below-ground sensing technologies, new geophysical techniques to characterize the interactions between near-surface and surface environments. Near-surface modeling using Description: The first few meters of the subsurface is of paramount importance to the engineering and environmental industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Geophysical Methods for Site Characterization of Nuclear Waste Disposal Sites
    REVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract NRC−02−07−006 Prepared by Ronald N. McGinnis,1 Stewart K. Sandberg,2 Ronald T. Green,1 and David A. Ferrill1 1Department of Earth, Material, and Planetary Sciences Geosciences and Engineering Division Southwest Research Institute® 2Consulting Geophysicist Houston, Texas October 2011 CONTENTS Section Page FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. vi 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 2 CURRENT UNDERSTANDING AND RELEVANCE OF GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES TO CHARACTERIZE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ............................................ 2-1 2.1 Relationships Between Physical Properties and Nuclear Waste Disposal Site Characterization ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.1 Tectonic Processes .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seismotectonic Map of Afghanistan, with Annotated Bibliography
    Prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development Seismotectonic Map of Afghanistan, with Annotated Bibliography By Russell L. Wheeler, Charles G. Bufe, Margo L. Johnson, and Richard L. Dart Open-File Report 2005–1264 This report is USGS Afghanistan Project Product No. 011 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2005 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government This report has not been reviewed for stratigraphic nomenclature Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. iii Contents 1. Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................1 2. Introduction................................................................................................................................................1 2.1. Seismotectonic
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Abstracts 105
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Bulletin 932-B GEOPHYSICAL ABSTRACTS 105 APRIL-JUNE 1941 COMPILED BY W. AYVAZOGLOU UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1942 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - - Price 10 cents CONTENTS Page 1. Gravitational methods._________________________________________ 41 2. Magnetic methods. _____________________________________:______ 45 3. Seismic methods.______________________________________________ 50 4. Electrical methods._________________--_-______--_.___----____-- 55 5. Radioactive methods____--_--_--_----_---__--------------____-_ 57 6. Geothermal methods._________________._____._______ ___________ 60 7. Geochemical methods...________________.____.._J__.-_____-______ 61 8. Unclassified methods and topics related to geophysics.._____________ 63 9. New publications____-______---.__-_________..__-__-_---_.______ 67 10. Patents.'..._...___...____..__ . -.......'._......_.._.__..-l_..-_ 70 Index.___________________--_-_____--._-_._____-_-__-_____:_ 83 NOTE. Geophysical Abstracts 1-86 were issued in mimeographed form by the Bureau of Mines; Abstracts 87-104 were published in bulletins of the Geological Survey, ii GEOPHYSICAL ABSTRACTS 105, APRIL-JUNEJ1941 Compiled by W. AYVAZOGLOU 1. GRAVITATIONAL METHODS 5993. Aerial, geological, and geophysical survey of northern Australia, Parlia­ ment of Commonwealth of Australia, 61 pp., 9 pis., L. F. Johnston, Commonwealth' Government Printer, Canberra, 1940. This is a report of the committee appointed to direct and control the aerial, geological, and geophysical survey of northern Australia for the period ended December 31, 1939 (for the previous report see Geophys. Abstracts 102, No. 5678). It describes the geophysical surveys in the Blair Athol coal field, Queensland, and in the Granite gold field, Northern Territory, where electrical, gravitational, and magnetic methods of prospecting were applied.
    [Show full text]