USGS Home
Contact USGS
Search USGS

Additional USGS Geoscience data can be found by geographic location or by publication series.

Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Appalachian Piedmont and Blue Ridge, South Carolina Segment

Frequently-anticipated questions:

• What does this data set describe?
  1. How should this data set be cited?
  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?
  3. What does it look like?
  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?
  5. What is the general form of this data set?
  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?
  8. What are the components of this data set?
• Who produced the data set?
  1. Who are the originators of the data set?
  2. Who also contributed to the data set?
  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
• Why was the data set created?
• How was the data set created?
  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?
  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?
  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?
• How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?
  1. How well have the observations been checked?
  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
  5. How consistent are the relationships among the data, including topology?
• How can someone get a copy of the data set?
  1. Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?
  2. Who distributes the data?
  3. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?
  4. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?
  5. How can I download or order the data?
• Who wrote the metadata?

What does this data set describe?

1. How should this data set be cited?

   J. Wright Horton, Jr., and Dicken, Connie L. , 2001, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Appalachian Piedmont and Blue Ridge, South Carolina Segment: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-298, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

   Online Links:

   • <http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of01-298/>

2. What geographic area does the data set cover?

   West_Bounding_Coordinate: -83.35405826

   East_Bounding_Coordinate: -78.49951258

   North_Bounding_Coordinate: 35.21542393

   South_Bounding_Coordinate: 32.04661212

3. What does it look like?

   <http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of01-298/index_east.jpg> (JPEG)

   Index map showing the overall coverage of the map. 384x314 pixels, 32-bit RGB true color

   <http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of01-298/sc_map2.jpg> (JPEG)

   Reduced-size image showing the geologic units of the map. 1535x1175 pixels, 32-bit RGB true color

   <http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of01-298/sc_map.jpg> (JPEG)

   Reduced-size image showing the lithologic units of the map. 1535x1175 pixels, 32-bit RGB true color

4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?

   Beginning_Date: 09-Jun-2000

   Ending_Date: 03-Aug-2001

   Currentness_Reference: publication date

5. What is the general form of this data set?

   Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map, vector digital data

6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
   1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?

      This is a vector data set. It contains the following vector data types (SDTS terminology):

      • point
      • string
      • GT-polygon composed of chains

   2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?

      Horizontal positions are specified in geographic coordinates, that is, latitude and longitude. Latitudes are given to the nearest 0.002. Longitudes are given to the nearest 0.002. Latitude and longitude values are specified in decimal degrees.

      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum of 1927.
      The ellipsoid used is Clarke 1866.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378206.4.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/294.98.
      

7. How does the data set describe geographic features?

   geology.pat

   Polygon attribute table for the geology coverage. The attributes address the identification, symbolization, age, lithology and description of the rock units. (Source: Arc/Info)

   MAP_CODE

   Symbol for the different units on the map. (character, width 16)

   Value	Definition
   TK	Coastal Plain sediments (Tertiary and Cretaceous)?
   TRc	Chatham Group (Triassic)?
   bz	Mylonitic rocks of Brevard fault zone (Late Paleozoic)?
   myg	mylonitic gneiss (Late Paleozoic)?
   ph	Phyllonite and phyllonitic schist (Late Paleozoic)?
   mym	Mylonitic rocks of Modoc fault zone (Late Paleozoic)?
   Cg	Granite (Carboniferous and Permian)?
   Cd	Gabbro and diorite (Carboniferous)?
   DScg	(Concord Plutonic Suite) Gabbro?
   DScs	(Concord Plutonic Suite) Syenite?
   Dgg	(Concord Plutonic Suite) Gray Court metagranite (Devonian)?
   Dp	(Concord Plutonic Suite) Pacolet granite (Devonian)?
   Dle	(Granite of Lowrys pluton) Equigranular granite (Devonian)
   Dlp	(Granite of Lowrys pluton) Porphyritic granite (Devonian)?
   Sgn	(Granite of Lowrys pluton) Newberry granite and similar, possibly related granites (Silurian)?
   DSg	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Granodiorite gneiss and granite gneiss (Devonian to Silurian)
   Pzgf	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Reedy River complex (informal name of Wagener, 1977) and smaller unnamed plutons (Paleozoic)?
   Pzgp	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Gneissic granite of Greenville (Paleozoic)?
   SOsga	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Gneissic granite of Antreville (Silurian to Ordovician)?
   SOsg	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Gneissic granite of Starr (Silurian to Ordovician)?
   SOg	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Caesars Head Granite (Silurian to Ordovician)?
   SOgg	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Granite gneiss, undivided (Silurian to Ordovician)?
   Ogt	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Toluca Granite and associated metagranites (Ordovician?)?
   Omg	(Table Rock Plutonic Suite) Migmatitic granitoid gneiss (Ordovician?)?
   Chg	Henderson Gneiss (Cambrian)?
   Pza	Anderson metagabbro (Paleozoic?)?
   Pzgj	Granite sheets near Joanna (Paleozoic?)?
   Pzgsa	Santuck granite (Paleozoic?)?
   PzZgr	Metamorphosed granitoids (Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic)?
   CZgr	Metamorphosed granite to granodiorite (Cambrian to Neoproterozoic)?
   CZdi	Diorite (Cambrian to Neoproterozoic)?
   OCgw	Waxhaw metagranite (Cambrian)?
   CZge	Edgemoor metagranite (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic)?
   CZggf	Great Falls metagranite (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic)?
   CZgph	Pleasant Hill metagranite (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   Zglt	Longtown Metagranite (Neoproterozoic)?
   mtg	Biotite metatonalite and granodiorite (Paleozoic or Neoproterozoic?)
   Ztr	Metatrondhjemite (Neoproterozoic?)
   Zto	Metatonalite (Neoproterozoic)?
   Ztl	Little Mountain metatonalite (Neoproterozoic)?
   PzZq	Metamorphosed quartz diorite to diorite (Paleozoic or Neoproterozoic?)
   CZmd	Metadiorite (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)
   PzZg	Metagabbro and minor metadiorite (Middle Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZdg	Metadiorite and minor metagabbro, containing sparse hornblendite and pyroxenite (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   um	Ultramafic rock (Paleozoic or Neoproterozoic)?
   m	Latimer complex of Griffin (1979) (Paleozoic or Neoproterozoic)?
   hgg	(Hammett Grove Meta-igneous Suite of Mittwede (1989)) Metagabbro
   hgu	(Hammett Grove Meta-igneous Suite of Mittwede (1989)) Metamorphosed ultramafic rocks?
   CZbu	Ultramafic rocks of Burks Mountain complex (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic)
   CZba	Amphibolite of Burks Mountain complex (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic)
   CZvs	Metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks of Belair belt (Ordovician to Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZk	Migmatitic paragneiss and schist of Kiokee belt (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   OCc	Cid Formation (Ordovician to Late Cambrian?)?
   OCr	Richtex Formation (Ordovician to Middle Cambrian)?
   Cap	Asbill Pond Formation (Middle Cambrian)?
   OZfs	Flat Swamp Formation (Ordovician to Neoproterozoic?)?
   OZvi	Layered metavolcanic rocks (Ordovician to Neoproterozoic?)?
   OZvf	Felsic metavolcanic rocks and layered felsic gneiss interpreted to be metavolcanic (Ordovician to Neoproterozoic?)
   OZvm	Mafic to intermediate metavolcanic rocks including layered hornblende gneiss and amphibolite (Ordovician to Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZpf	Persimmon Fork Formation (Cambrian to Neoproterozoic)?
   CZph	Quartz-sericite phyllite and schist (Cambrian to Neoproterozoic?)?
   Zlm	Lincolnton Metadacite (Neoproterozoic)?
   gn	Biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss (Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic)?
   am	Amphibolite and amphibole gneiss (Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic)
   ms	Tuffaceous metasiltstone (Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic)
   CZlr	Metasedimentary rocks of Little River Sequence (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZbl	Blacksburg Formation, undivided (Neoproterozoic?)?
   Zba	(Battleground Formation) Metasedimentary rocks (undivided)?
   Zbp	(Battleground Formation) Schistose to phyllitic volcaniclastic rocks
   Zbf	(Battleground Formation) Felsic metavolcanic rocks
   Zbm	(Battleground Formation) Mafic to intermediate metavolcanic rocks
   eca	Enoree mélange (informal name of Mittwede and Maybin, 1989), Cedar Shoals gneiss (informal name of Horkowitz, 1984) and Cross Anchor mafic complex (informal name as used by Maybin and Niewendorp, 1993) collectively interpreted by Maybin and Niewendorp (1993) as part of Central Piedmont allochthon. Cedar Shoals gneiss is biotite-quartz-feldspar gneiss interpreted as metagraywacke and interlayered felsic gneiss interpreted as metavolcanic rock (Dennis and others, 1995, Stop 10)
   pcc	Philson Crossroads complex (informal name of Maybin and Niewendorp, 1993)?
   CZgi	Biotite gneiss having interlayered marble, calc-silicate gneiss, sillimanite-muscovite schist, and garnet-quartz rock (Cambrian to Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZcp	Chauga River Formation and Poor Mountain Formation (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZwa	Wallhalla metamorphic suite (informal name of Horton and McConnell, 1991) (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZgl	Biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss and interlayers locally containing hornblende, sillimanite, microcline, and muscovite (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZwr	Biotite-quartz-feldspar gneiss of Whitmire reentrant (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZga	Amphibolite having interlayered biotite gneiss, hornblende gneiss, and minor mica schist (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)
   CZsp	Sillimanite schist and sillimanite-mica schist (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZsg	Biotite-plagioclase-quartz gneiss and biotite-muscovite schist (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZpg	Megacrystic biotite gneiss (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZms	Sillimanite-mica schist and muscovite-biotite schist (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZbg	Biotite gneiss and muscovite-biotite gneiss (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   CZgs	Garnetiferous mica schist (Cambrian or Neoproterozoic?)?
   Zatb	(Tallulah Falls Formation) Gneissic metagraywacke and schist?
   Zata	(Tallulah Falls Formation) Amphibolite
   Yt	Toxaway Gneiss (Mesoproterozoic)?

   general_symbol

   A general symbol for the units (a little less detailed than the map symbols, code of width 16)

   Map_unit

   Type of rocks (descriptive text of width 125))

   age

   Geologic age of the map units (descriptive text of width 40))

   Value	Definition
   Cambrian
   Cambrian and/or Neoproterozoic
   Cambrian or Neoproterozoic
   Cambrian to Neoproterozoic
   Carboniferous
   Carboniferous to Permian
   Devonian
   Devonian to Silurian
   Early Paleozoic-Neoproterozoic
   Late Paleozoic
   Mesoproterozoic
   Middle Cambrian
   Middle Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic
   Neoproterozoic
   Ordovician
   Ordovician to Cambrian
   Ordovician to Late Cambrian
   Ordovician to Middle Cambrian
   Ordovician to Neoproterozoic
   Ordovician to Silurian
   Paleozoic
   Paleozoic or Neoproterozoic
   Paleozoic to Neoproterozoic
   Silurian
   Silurian to Ordovician
   Tertiary and Cretaceous
   Triassic
   undetermined

   groupings

   terranes (grouping of the units into common terranes) (descriptive text of width 80)

   Value	Definition
   Atlantic Coastal Plain
   Battleground and Blacksburg Formations
   Bel Air Belt, layered and stratified rocks
   Blue Ridge
   Carolina Slate Belt and Charlotte Belt, layered and stratified rocks
   Central Piedmont Allochthon of Maybin and Niewendorp
   Early Mesozoic Rift Basins, layered and stratified rocks
   Early Paleozoic Plutonic Rocks
   Early Paleozoic-Neoproterozoic Plutons and Subvolcanic Complexes
   Kiokee Belt, layered and stratified rocks
   Late Paleozoic Plutonic Rocks
   Late Paleozoic Shear Zones
   Little River Belt, layered and stratified rocks
   Mafic-Ultramafic Complexes and Ultramafic Rocks
   Middle Paleozoic Plutonic Rocks
   Plutons of Undetermined Affinity and Age
   Western Piedmont, layered and stratified rocks

   descriptio

   Specific lithologic description of the units. (descriptive text of width 200)

   geo_prov

   geologic provinces (descriptive text of width 25)

   Value	Definition
   Atlantic Coastal Plain
   Piedmont Mesozoic basin
   Eastern Piedmont
   Central Piedmont
   Western Piedmont
   Blue Ridge

   lithology

   units are classified by lithology based on Bruce Johnson's classification scheme. (descriptive text of width 33)

   Value	Definition
   amphibolite
   augen gneiss
   biotite gneiss
   conglomerate
   diorite
   felsic metavolcanic rock
   gabbro
   gneiss
   granite
   granitic gneiss
   granitoid
   mafic gneiss
   mafic metavolcanic rock
   mafic rock
   metasedimentary rock
   metavolcanic rock
   mica schist
   mylonite
   paragneiss
   phyllite
   phyllonite
   quartz diorite
   schist
   syenite
   tonalite
   trondhjemite
   ultramafic intrusive rock
   unconsolidated deposit

   fault.aat

   Line coverage that contains 4 fault classes (Source: attributes were assigned by Horton.)

   class

   lines separated into 4 different classes (Source: assigned by Horton)

   Value	Definition
   Ductile shear zone (Late Paleozoic)
   Fault (unspecified)
   Normal fault (Mesozoic)
   Thrust fault (Paleozoic)

   Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:

   By virtue of its origin in Arc/Info, the polygon attribute table includes attributes SHAPE, AREA, PERIMETER, COVER# and COVER-id.

   Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:

   FAULTS.AAT:
   
   COLUMN   ITEM NAME        WIDTH OUTPUT  TYPE N.DEC  ALTERNATE NAME
       1  FNODE#                 4     5     B      -
       5  TNODE#                 4     5     B      -
       9  LPOLY#                 4     5     B      -
      13  RPOLY#                 4     5     B      -
      17  LENGTH                 8    18     F      5
      25  FAULTS#                4     5     B      -
      29  FAULTS-ID              4     5     B      -
      33  CLASS                 40    40     C      -
   GEOLOGY.PAT:
   
   COLUMN   ITEM NAME        WIDTH OUTPUT  TYPE N.DEC  ALTERNATE NAME
       1  AREA                   8    18     F      5
       9  PERIMETER              8    18     F      5
      17  GEOLOGY#               4     5     B      -
      21  GEOLOGY-ID             4     5     B      -
      25  ID                    16    16     I      -
      41  MAP_CODE              16    16     C      -
      57  GENERAL_SY            16    16     C      -
      73  MAP_UNIT             125   125     C      -
     198  AGE                   40    40     C      -
     238  GROUPINGS             80    80     C      -
     318  DESCRIPTIO           200   200     C      -
     518  GEO_PROV              25    25     C      -
     543  LITHOLOGY             33    33     C      -
   

8. What are the components of this data set?

   geology.e00 (Arc/Info coverage)

   Polygon coverage that contains the following attributes: area, perimeter, geology#, geology-id, id, map_code, general_sy, map_unit, age, groupings, descriptio, geo_prov, and lithology

   faults.e00 (Arc/Info coverage)

   Line coverage that contains faults for the south carolina segment (not including the unconsolidated deposits on the coastal plain).

   lat_long.dbf (ArcView shapefile)

   ArcView shapefile that contains 1 degree latitude and longitude lines for reference.

   counties.dbf (ArcView shapefile)

   ArcView shapefile that contains county data to be used for reference.

   sources.dbf (ArcView shapefile)

   Shapefile that contains the principal sources of geologic map data.

Who produced the data set?

1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)
   • J. Wright Horton, Jr.
   • Connie L. Dicken

2. Who also contributed to the data set?

   J. Wright Horton, Jr.

3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
   J. Wright Horton, Jr.
   U.S. Geological Survey
   USGS National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 926A
   Reston, VA 20192
   USA
   

   703-648-6933 (voice)
   703-648-6953 (FAX)
   whorton@usgs.gov
   

Why was the data set created?

This preliminary geology coverage of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge in South Carolina is part of a set of coverages being assembled for the analysis of regional and national geochemical patterns that may have environmental and resource implications.

How was the data set created?

1. From what previous works were the data drawn?

   barker (source 1 of 20)

   Barker, Chris A., Secor, D.T., Jr., Pray, J.R., and Wright, J.E., 1998, Age and deformation of the Longtown metagranite, South Carolina Piedmont: A possible constraint on the origin of the Carolina terrane: Journal of Geology v. 106, p. 713-725, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map, Figure 2 of Ridgeway and Longtown 7.5' quadrangles.

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 100000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data in Ridgeway and Longtown 7.5-minute quadrangles, South Carolina.

   boland (source 2 of 20)

   Boland, Irene, B., 1996, The geologic, geophysical, and geochemical nature of the Carolina terrane in north central South Carolina: University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Other_Citation_Details: Unpublished Ph.D thesis 121 p.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 200000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data in Carolina terrane, north-central South Carolina

   butler 77 (source 3 of 20)

   Butler, J.Robert, 1977, Generalized geologic map of the Spartanburg quadrangle, South Carolina and North Carolina: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Labratory, Aiken, South Carolina.

   This is part of the following larger work.

   Heffner, J.D., and Ferguson, R.B., 1977, Savannah River Laboratory Hydrogeochemical and stream sediment reconnaissance, Preliminary raw data release, Spartanburg 1º x 2º NTMS area, North Carolina and South Carolina, National Uranium Resource Evaluation Program: U.S. Department if Energy, DPST-77-146-2, GJBX-9.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map compilation in Spartanburg 1º x 2º quadrangle.

   butler88 (source 4 of 20)

   Butler, J. Robert, 1988, Geologic map of Chester County, South Carolina: Open File Report Open File Report 63, South Carolina Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 130000

   Source_Contribution: Provided geologic map data in Chester County, South Carolina.

   curl (source 5 of 20)

   Curl, Douglas C., 1998, Stratigraphy and structure of Wellford and Reidville quadrangles in part of the eastern Inner Piedmont, near Spartanburg South Carolina: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

   Other_Citation_Details: unpublished M.S. thesis

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 24000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data in Wellford and Reidville 7.5-minute quadrangles.

   daniels (source 6 of 20)

   Daniels, David L., 1974, Geologic interpretation of geophysical maps, central Savannah River area, South Carolina and Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Geophysical Investigations map GP-893, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided interpretive geologic map data in central Savannah River area.

   dennis (source 7 of 20)

   Dennis, Allen J., 1995, Rocks of the Carolina terrane in the Spartanburg 30º x 60º quadrangle: Allen J. Dennis, University of South Carolina at Aiken, Aiken, South Carolina.

   Online Links:

   • www.eos.duke.edu/cgs/cgscdguide.htm

   Other_Citation_Details: prepared for 1995 Carolina Geological Society Annual Meeting

   Type_of_Source_Media: maps

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 100000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data and compilation in Spartanburg 30 x 60-minute quadrangle.

   goldsmith (source 8 of 20)

   Goldsmith, Richard, Milton, D.J., and Horton, J.W., Jr., 1988, Geologic map of the Charlotte 1º X 2º quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1251-E, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data and compilation in Charlotte 1º x 2º quadrangle.

   hadley (source 9 of 20)

   Hadley, J.B., and Nelson, A.E., 1971, Geologic map of the Knoxville quadrangle, North Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-654, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data and compilation in Knoxville 1º x 2º quadrangle.

   johnson (source 10 of 20)

   Johnson, Bruce R., unpublished, draft version, Geologic Map Unit Classification, ver. 6.0.

   Other_Citation_Details:

   Contributors to the classification scheme are as follows: Richard Berg, Pam Derkey, Jim Evans, Mike Foose, Tom Frost, Dave Fullerton, Ralph Haugerud, Steve Ludington, Dave Miller, Barry Moring, Jack Reed, Gary Raines, Dave Soller, Doug Stoeser, Ric Wilson, and Lynn Wingard.

   Type_of_Source_Media: paper

   Source_Contribution: Provided classification scheme for lithology.

   lawerence (source 11 of 20)

   Lawerence, D.P., 1999, Tectonic setting of the northwest-trending Buzzard's Roost shear zone, central South Carolina: South Carolina Geology South Carolina Geology, v. 41, p. 1-9 and Figure 3., South Carolina Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Type_of_Source_Media: paper

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 24000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data and compilation in Cokesbury, Waterloo, Cross Hill, Bush River, Ninety Six, Dyson, and Chappells 7.5-minute quadrangles.

   maher (source 12 of 20)

   Maher, H.D., Jr., Sacks, P.E., and Secor, D.T., 1991, The eastern Piedmont in South Carolina (Chapter 6): University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

   This is part of the following larger work.

   Horton, J.W., Jr., and Zullo, V.A., 1991, The Geology of the Carolina, Carolina Geological Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume: University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

   Other_Citation_Details: p. 93-108, Figs. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5.

   Type_of_Source_Media: page-sized maps in book chapter

   Source_Contribution: Provided geologic map compilations in eastern Piedmont.

   maybin and niewendorp (source 13 of 20)

   Maybin, A.H., III, and Niewendorp, C.A., 1993, The central Piedmont allochthon: An Alleghanian terrane in the central Piedmont of South Carolina: South Carolina Geology South Carolina Geology, v. 36, p. 47-57, South Carolina Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 80000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data in Ora and Philson Crossroads 7.5-minute quadrangles.

   Greenville Quad (source 14 of 20)

   Nelson, Arthur E., Horton, J. Wright, Jr., and Clarke, James W., 1998, Geologic Map of the Greenville 1º x 2º Quadrangle, South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina: Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-2175 (Sheet 1 and 2), 12 p. text, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data and compilation in the Greenville 1º x 2º quadrangle.

   offield (source 15 of 20)

   Offield, Terry W., and Sutphin, David, ed, 2000, Revised stratigraphic and tectonic framework of the Carolina slate belt from southern Virginia to the South Carolina-Georgia border (with observations bearing on the origin of slate-belt gold deposits): U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-2, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

   Type_of_Source_Media: CD-ROM

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 100000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided source of geologic map data and compilation for Carolina slate belt and adjacent areas.

   pray (source 16 of 20)

   Pray, J.R., 1997, Geology of the Modoc fault zone and adjacent terranes in the Southern Appalachian Piedmont; geochronological and kinematic investigations: University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Other_Citation_Details: unpublished dissertation

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 476000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map interpretation for Modoc fault zone and adjacent terranes of eastern Piedmont.

   robinson (source 17 of 20)

   Robinson, Gilpin R., Lesure, F.G., Jr., Marlowe, J.I. II, Foley, N.K., and Clark, S.H., 1992, Bedrock Geology and Mineral Resources of the Knoxville 1° x 2° Quadrangle, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1979, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided update of Hadley and Nelson geologic map compilation in Knoxville 1º x 2º quadrangle.

   schaeffer (source 18 of 20)

   Schaeffer, Malcolm F., 1981, Preliminary geologic map of north central South Carolina: South Carolina Geology v. 25, p. 1-8., South Carolina Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 250000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map data and compilation in north-central South Carolina.

   secor (source 19 of 20)

   Secor, Donald T., Jr., Snoke, A.W., Bramlett, K.W., Costello, O.P., and Kimbrell, O.P., 1986, Character of the Alleghanian orogeny in the southern Appalachians: Part I. Alleghanian deformation in the eastern Piedmont of South Carolina: Geological Society of America Bulletin v. 97, p. 1319-1328, Figs. 1 and 3., Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

   Type_of_Source_Media: map

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 857000 (figure 1) and 294000 (figure 3), approximately

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided supplementary geologic map compilation and regional interpretation for central and eastern Piedmont.

   west (source 20 of 20)

   West, Thomas E., Jr., 1997, Structural studies along the Carolina-Inner Piedmont terrane boundary in South Carolina and Georgia: Implications for the tectonics of the southern Appalachians [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

   Other_Citation_Details:

   Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 72 p.
   Scale varies from figure to figure within the publication. Approximate scales of the figures are given here:

   316000 (figure 3-3, Whitmire reentrant, scale approximate)
   178570 (figure 3-4 Shoals Jct., Cokesbury, and Waterloo 7.5' quadrangles)
   24000 (plates 1-3 same quadrangles)
   

   Type_of_Source_Media: maps

   Source_Scale_Denominator: 24000

   Source_Contribution:

   Provided geologic map interpretation of Whitmire re-entrant and detailed geologic maps of Shoals Junction, Cokesburg, and Waterloo 7.5-minute quadrangles.

2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?

   Date: May-2000 - 200006 (process 1 of 11)

   J.W. Horton, Jr., conducted literature search for sources of geologic map data.

   Date: Jun-2000 (process 2 of 11)

   Emphasizing areas not previously compiled by Offield and Sutphin (2000) and Nelson and others (1998), J.W. Horton, Jr. compiled multiple sources of geologic map data in pencil on 1:500,000-scale greenline base and registered mylar overlay, with revisions to merge units and reduce inconsistencies.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • offield and nelson

   Date: Jun-2000 - 200007 (process 3 of 11)

   J.W. Horton, Jr. compiled map unit descriptions initially from Offield and Sutphin (2000), North Carolina Geological Survey (1985; to match across State line); Nelson and others (1998), Goldsmith and others (1988), Boland (1996), and Dennis (1995), with revisions to accommodate other source maps.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • offield, nelson, goldsmith, boland, and dennis

   Date: 18-Sep-2000 (process 4 of 11)

   Following earlier discussions, J.W. Horton, Jr. gave a preliminary working copy of the map to S.C. State Geologist C.W. Clendenin and Scott Howard, South Carolina Geological Survey, who declined an invitation to help in compilation but provided helpful discussions and references, including the latest version of Maybin and others' (2000) general compilation.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • maybin

   Date: Aug-2000 - 200009 (process 5 of 11)

   J.W. Horton Jr. wrote drafts of introduction and reference lists, which were updated as needed.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • compiled all references

   Date: Jun-2000 (process 6 of 11)

   J.W. Horton, Jr. provided copy of Offield and Sutphin's (2000) digital geologic map compilation (CD-ROM) to C.L. Dicken for integration with map.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • offield

   Date: 09-Jun-2000 (process 7 of 11)

   C.L. Dicken received Greenville quad transparency from J.W. Horton, Jr. Scanned the stable base material and converted the scanned image to a grid (two separate coverages- one for the geology and one for faults). The grids were then auto-vectorized in Arc/Info. Once all the lines were generated, the coverage was georeferenced. Some rubber sheeting was needed to decrease error for the coverages.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • Greenville quad

   Date: 20-Jun-2000 (process 8 of 11)

   C.L. Dicken received mylar sheet which contained the area of South Carolina (not including Greenville quad) to be included in this map. The mylar contained the geology and fault lines. This sheet was scanned in as lineart image. The image was converted to a grid; then converted to lines by using the GRIDLINE function in Arc/Info. The lines then were georeferenced and rubber sheeted.
   Projection information:

   Lambert Conic Conformal
   
   Spheroid               Clarke 1886
   Central Meridian      -96 00 00
   Reference Latitude     00 00 00
   Standard Parallel 1    33 00 00
   Standard Parallel 2    45 00 00
   

   Data sources used in this process:

   • south carolina

   Date: 03-Jul-2000 (process 9 of 11)

   Joined the coverage from the greenville and south carolina coverage into one coverage and made corrections as needed. Built polygon for the geology coverage and the line coverage for the faults.
   Tagged polygons with ID numbers and made edits as needed.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • greenville and south carolina

   Date: 13-Mar-2001 (process 10 of 11)

   J.W. Horton, Jr. gave C.L. Dicken revisions of the geology and fault coverage. These changes were made and attributes were updated.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • south carolina, curl, pray, west, lawrence

   Date: 03-Aug-2001 (process 11 of 11)

   All finals revisions have been made to date.

   Data sources used in this process:

   • all sources

3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?

How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

1. How well have the observations been checked?

   Attributes were assigned based on the source maps used and edited at the discretion of J. Wright Horton, Jr. All attributes were checked against the source maps for errors and corrected as needed.
   Information within the ArcView project has been generalized for ease of use. For example, the background text information contains ages with ? to indicate that some are not known. However, within the tables, the ages do not have ?. This is to allow the user to query based on ages or other fields without having to perform complex queries.

2. How accurate are the geographic locations?

   Rubbersheeting was performed to minimize the error. Digital maps were compared to hard copy maps and errors were corrected as needed.
   This map is intended to be used at a scale of 1:500,000.

3. How accurate are the heights or depths?

4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?

   This coverage was assembled mainly from other regional compilations listed under the heading: Principal Sources of Geologic Map Data (found in descriptions.doc). Those sources incorporate numerous, more detailed maps as well as new mapping. Modifications are based on sources listed under References Cited and Additional Sources of Geologic Data (found in descriptions.doc). Although including all of the latest geologic mapping is far beyond the intended scope of this compilation, this coverage for South Carolina is still generally more up-to-date than the comparable database coverages for North Carolina and Georgia (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985; Georgia Geological Survey, 1976). Dikes of early Jurassic diabase as compiled separately by Bell (1988), are omitted here. The Atlantic Coastal Plain boundary is adapted from Offield and Sutphin (2000) with local modifications, and it differs slightly from that of Prowell and others (2000). Surficial geologic units are not shown in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge on this coverage or others nearby (Georgia Geologic Survey, 1976; North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Virginia Geological Survey, 1993), although deposits such as floodplain alluvium may be important for understanding regional geochemical patterns. Many rock types are lumped because of the compilation scale (1:500,000) and because the geology of many areas has not been mapped and studied in detail. No new fieldwork was conducted, so any errors in the source maps will be perpetuated. This compilation and others of similar scale in this region (e.g., Georgia Geological Survey, 1976; North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985) should be considered progress reports to be superseded as knowledge of the geology improves.

5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?

   All polygons were checked for closure. Overshoots and undershoots have been corrected and deleted where necessary.

How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?

Access_Constraints: none

Use_Constraints:

The U.S. Geological Survey makes no warranties related to the accuracy of the data and users are required to determine the suitability of use for any particular purpose.
This map should not be used at a scale greater than 1: 500,000.

1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)
   J. Wright Horton, Jr.
   U.S. Geological Survey
   USGS National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 926A
   Reston, VA 20192
   USA
   

   703-648-6933 (voice)
   703-648-6953 (FAX)
   whorton@usgs.gov
   

2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?

3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?

   The US Geological Survey provides these geographic data "as is." The USGS makes no guarantee or warranty concerning the accuracy of information contained in this geographic data. The USGS further makes no warranties, either expressed or implied as to any other matter whatsoever, including, without limitation, the condition of the product, or its fitness for any particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. Although these data have been processed successfully on USGS computers, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS regarding the use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute or imply any such warranty. In no event shall the USGS have any liability whatsoever for payment of any consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, any loss of profits arising out of use of or reliance on the geographic data or arising out of the delivery, installation, operation, or support by the USGS.

4. How can I download or order the data?
   • Availability in digital form:

     Data format:	Geologic units, with lithology, and abbreviated base map layers in format ArcView shapefiles (version 1.0) Size: 3.1 megabytes
     Network links:	<http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of01-298/data_files.zip>

     Data format:	Geologic units, with lithology, and abbreviated base map layers in format ArcInfo export (version 8.0.1) Size: 1.8 megabytes
     Network links:	<http://pubs.usgs.gov/openfile/of01-298/export_files.zip>

   • Cost to order the data: none

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:

Last modified: 2001
Last Reviewed: 25-Oct-2001

Metadata author:

Connie L. Dicken
U.S. Geological Survey
USGS National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS954
Reston, VA 20192
USA

703-648-6482 (voice)
703-648-6252 (FAX)
cdicken@usgs.gov

Metadata standard:

Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)

Metadata extensions used:

• <http://geology.usgs.gov/tools/metadata/tools/ext/parts.ext>