Morgan W. M. Nasholds, Ryan S. Crow, Tracey J. Felger, Skyler P. Mavor, and Scott E. K. Bennett 20230814 1.0 vector digital data https://doi.org/10.5066/P98R9JM3 This geologic database is a digitized version of the original 1:24,000-scale analog geologic map titled "Geologic map of the Vidal, California, and Parker SW, California-Arizona quadrangles", published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1980. The map area straddles the Arizona-California border, and is located approximately 9.0 km (5.6 mi) west-southwest of Parker, CA, immediately south of the unincorporated communities of Vidal and Vidal Junction, CA. The map area includes the northern Riverside Mountains, which contain a prominent suite of Permian, Mesozoic, and potentially Precambrian metamorphic and metasedimentary rocks. These rocks predominantly consist of gneisses, schists, limestones, and dolomites, separated by three mapped structural discontinuities and the prominent Whipple Mountains Detachment Fault. The map area additionally contains small outcrops of Miocene intermediate-to-felsic volcanic rocks consisting of basaltic andesite flows, andesitic porphyry, rhyolitic intrusives, and the Peach Springs Tuff. The Riverside Mountains are surrounded by numerous sedimentary units, largely consisting of fluvial deposits, that record the arrival and subsequent fluctuations of the Colorado River in the region from the Pliocene through the Holocene. These sedimentary units additionally record Quaternary alluvial fan processes on the flanks of the Riverside Mountains and in the lower Vidal Valley. This product was made to digitally document the published large-scale geologic mapping of the area near Parker, AZ and the Whipple Mountains, CA. The database is a product of the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program’s (NCGMP) U.S. GeoFramework Initiative (USGI), which aims to seamlessly map the geology of the United States at an intermediate scale (~1:100,000). The database can be queried or plotted and will be used for further compilation efforts focusing on geologic mapping in the Lower Colorado River region of the southwestern United States. USGS_I-1125.gdb is a composite geodataset that conforms to "GeMS (Geologic Map Schema)--a standard format for the digital publication of geologic maps", available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/standards/GeMS/. Metadata records associated with each element within the geodataset contain more detailed descriptions of their purposes, constituent entities, and attributes. An OPEN shapefile versions of the dataset is also available. It consists of shapefiles, DBF files, and delimited text files and retains most information in the native geodatabase, but some programming will likely be necessary to assemble these components into usable formats. The metadata records that are included with the OPEN file package are largely duplicated from the metadata for the geodatabase, and have not been modified to reflect schema and content changes that resulted during the conversion process (such as changes to field names). The metadata therefore, does not accurately describe all aspects of the shapefiles, and the user is advised to consult the GeMs documentation and the documentation for the GeMS "Translate to Shapefiles" tool available at https://github.com/usgs/gems-tools-arcmap/wiki/GeMS_ToolsDocumentation#TranslateToShapefiles for more information. These versions of the metadata were prepared with the aid of script GeMS_FGDC1_Arc10.py, version of 29 March 2022. 1980 publication date Complete None planned -114.6250 -114.3750 34.1250 34.0000 ISO 19115 Topic Category geoscientificInformation USGS Thesaurus digitization unconsolidated deposits geologic maps faulting (geologic) bedrock geologic units geologic contacts geologic history igneous rocks metamorphic rocks sedimentary rocks volcanic rocks plutonic rocks Lithologic classification of geologic map units Mafic volcanic rock Alluvium Intermediate volcanic rock Gneiss Sand Gravel Limestone Tuff Andesite Granite Tufa Rhyolite Dolomite Breccia None GeMS (Geologic Map Schema) NCGMP (National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program) GMEG (Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center) USGI (U.S. GeoFramework Initiative) NGMDB (National Geologic Map Database) LOCOS (Geologic Mapping of the Lower Colorado River System) USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:64d1165bd34ef477cf3bf8d4 Common geographic areas Vidal Riverside Mountains Parker SW Arizona California Parker Colorado River Indian Reservation None. Vector data not for use at scales larger (more detailed) than 1:24,000. Nonspatial tables and symbology files included in this release are not for use with other geologic map databases. Any derivative products utilizing these datasets shall clearly indicate their source. If data are modified in any way the user is obligated to describe the types of modifications that have been made. User specifically agrees not to misrepresent these datasets, nor to imply that changes that were made were approved by the USGS. Even though the dataset includes information about positional accuracy, it is NOT a survey document, and should not be utilized as such. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. When using this digital database, please also cite the original map. Suggested citation is Carr, W. J., and Dickey, D. D., 1980, Geologic map of the Vidal, California, Parker SW California-Arizona Quadrangles: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-1125, 1 sheet, 1:24,000-scale. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/i1125.] Morgan WM Nasholds U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Physical Scientist mailing and physical

2255 N Gemini Dr.

Flagstaff AZ 86001 United States 928-556-7216 mnasholds@usgs.gov This digitized database was prepared by Morgan W. M. Nasholds, Ryan S. Crow, Tracey J. Felger, Skyler P. Mavor, and Scott E. K. Bennett. Additional digitization efforts were made by Melissa Ryan, Colleen Cassidy, and Elizabeth Mennow. The GeMS toolbox (https://github.com/usgs/gems-tools-pro) and python scripts created by Ryan Crow (https://github.com/rcrow) were used in digitizing the database into the GeMS schema, and creating metadata. Metadata was prepared using the USGS Metadata Wizard (https://www.usgs.gov/software/metadatawizard) and guidance provided by Ralph Haugerud (USGS; https://github.com/usgs/gems-tools-arcmap/wiki/CompleteMetadata#what-you-should-do). Digital and metadata review was provided by Dylan W. Kinser. Funding for the compilation was provided by the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program’s (NCGMP) U.S. GeoFramework Initiative (USGI) to the USGS Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center (GMEG). Environment of Metadata Creation: Windows 10 Enterprise, Version 21H2, 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor; ESRI ArcMap 10.7.0.10450. Environment of Geodatabase Creation: Windows 10 Enterprise, Version 21H2, 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor; ESRI ArcGIS Pro 3.0.3. W. J. Carr, D. D. Dickey 1980 publication Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1125 n/a U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/i1125 The feature datasets, feature attribute tables, and nonspatial tables in this geodatabase have been structured and populated according to the guidelines specified in the GeMS documentation. Some line, point, and polygon feature classes in the database include confidence attribute IdentityConfidence that describes on a per-feature basis how confident the author or compiler is that a geologic feature is correctly identified. Some line feature classes also include attribute ExistenceConfidence that describes on a per-feature basis how confident the author or compiler is that the geologic feature exists. The values assigned to IdentityConfidence and ExistenceConfidence for a given feature apply to the accuracy of the original mapping, and not the accuracy of the compiler(s) translation of the mapping. The accuracy of the original mapping was not specifically evaluated; however, errors that were found during compilation/digitization are noted in the Notes field of the relevant feature class. No formal tests were performed to assess the accuracy of the original mapping. Attribute integrity was evaluated using scripted and visual workflows. The GeMS Validate Database tool was used to identify errors related to the schema and content of geodatabase, including attribution errors or inconsistencies. The GeMS Topology Check tool was used to identify potential attribution and geometry errors, and logical inconsistencies such as adjacency issues in feature classes ContactsAndFaults and MapUnitPolys. These tools were used iteratively during the compilation process until all errors were identified and fixed. In some cases, the mapping depicted by the original author(s) on the source map creates situations that are erroneously identified as errors by these tools. Refer to the tool help and GeMS documentation for more information. Attribute accuracy was also assessed during compilation by symbolizing the data based on attributes (following the specifications in the FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization) and visually comparing the depiction to the source mapping for discrepancies. As part of the USGS data review process, the attribute accuracy of the final database was further evaluated by a reviewer who was not involved in the compilation process. All errors or inconsistencies identified by the data reviewer were subsequently reconciled by the compiler(s). This geodatabase is a composite geodataset that encapsulates the spatial and nonspatial data needed to depict and describe the geology of the map area. It conforms to the GeMS standard, except for deviations noted in the Data Quality section of the metadata record associated with each data element. The geodatabase was digitized to replicate the source map as closely as possible, and therefore includes specific apparent geological and topological errors. Topological errors inherent to the original mapping are preserved as exceptions and additionally clarified in both the Notes attribute field and metadata of their respective feature classes. GeMS Validation issues are additionally clarified in the metadata of their respective feature classes. Topology rules required by GeMS, plus two additional rules required by the Geologic Mapping of the Lower Colorado River System project (LOCOS), were applied to feature classes ContactsAndFaults and MapUnitPolys. In addition to the rules that are specific to each feature class, ContactsAndFaults and MapUnitPolys are also topologically related to each other. The GeMS rules for ContactsAndFaults are Must Not Overlap, Must Not Self-Overlap, Must Not Self-Intersect, Must Be Single Part, and Must Not Have Dangles, with the LOCOS team additionally including the topology rules Must Not Intersect Or Touch Interior and Must Not Have Pseudo-Nodes. The GeMS rules for MapUnitPolys are Must Not Overlap, Must Not Have Gaps, and Boundary Must Be Covered By (ContactsAndFaults). Topology rules are applied via the GeologicMap_Topology layer included in the geodatabase. Some topology errors are acceptable and are flagged as exceptions in the GeologicMap_Topology layer. More information about types of exceptions specific to each feature class can be found in the Data Quality section of the metadata records for ContactsAndFaults and MapUnitPolys. Topology validation and editing were conducted interactively during the compilation process using the topology validation and error inspector tools in ArcGIS Pro, and using the GeMS Topology Check tool. These tools were used iteratively by the compilers until all identified errors were fixed or attributed as exceptions. The GeMS Validate Database tool was used to identify errors related to the schema and content of the geodatabase. Additional logical consistency tests were conducted manually to evaluate and search for invalid attributes or attribute combinations. These tests included interactive sorting of attribute table values, SQL queries, and generation of frequency tables. These tests were performed iteratively by the compilers until identified errors were fixed or noted as exceptions. As part of the USGS data review process, the logical consistency of the final database was further evaluated by a data reviewer who was not involved in the compilation process. This included reviewing the data, reviewing the metadata record(s), and cross checking the metadata content against the associated data. All errors or inconsistencies identified by the data reviewer were subsequently reconciled by the compiler(s). This geodatabase contains all the geologic features depicted on the published source map. Furthermore, it includes all the schema and attribute elements required by the GeMS standard, unless otherwise noted in the Data Quality section of the metadata record associated with each data element. A formal assessment of the horizontal positional accuracy of the features in the database has not been conducted. Feature attribute LocationConfidenceMeters is included in most feature classes in a GeMS database and is used to store the estimated positional accuracy of spatial features on a per-feature basis. For this dataset, however, a value of -9999 was assigned for that attribute for all features in the database except the map neatline. This is because meaningful values could not be assigned with certainty. In this database the locational accuracy of the features is a function of the accuracy of the original mapping, the accuracy of the georeferenced scan of the source map, and how closely the features were digitized to match the source map. The U.S. National Map Accuracy Standard for the 1:24,000-scale topographic base of the source map is about 12 meters (40 feet). Features that are perfectly located relative to the topography on the source map would also adhere to that standard - meaning that the geologic feature on the source map would be within about +/- 40 feet of that location on the ground. However, the actual locational error may be much greater than that due to the complexities inherent in mapping geologic features, compiling them on topographic maps prior to the existence of GPS and GIS, and then digitizing them from scanned and georeferenced hardcopy maps. A formal accuracy assessment of the vertical positional information in the data set has either not been conducted or is not applicable. D. D. Dickey, W. J. Carr, and W. B. Bull 1980 publication Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1124 n/a U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/i1124 24000 Digital and/or Hardcopy 1980 publication date Parker-NWParker-Whipple24k_USGS_I-1124 Geologic features, description of map units, and explanation of map symbols. W. J. Carr and D. D. Dickey 1980 publication Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1125 n/a U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/i1125 24000 Digital and/or Hardcopy 1980 publication date Vidal-ParkerSW24k_USGS_I-1125 Geologic features, description of map units, and explanation of map symbols. W. J. Carr, D. D. Dickey, and W. D. Quinlivan 1980 publication Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1126 n/a U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/i1126 24000 Digital and/or Hardcopy 1980 publication date VidalNWArea24k_USGS_I-1126 Geologic features, description of map units, and explanation of map symbols. U.S. Geological Survey 2020 publication Techniques and Methods 11-B10 https://doi.org/10.3133/tm11B10 Digital and/or Hardcopy 2020 publication date GeMS Digital geologic map publication standards. Ralph Haugerud, Evan Thoms, and others 2023 application/service https://github.com/DOI-USGS/gems-tools-pro https://github.com/doi-usgs/gems-tools-arcmap Digital 2023 publication date GeMS toolbox Tools used to create and manipulate the dataset. Federal Geographic Data Committee [prepared for the Federal Geographic Data Committee by the U.S. Geological Survey] 2006 publication Federal Geographic Data Committee Document FGDC-STD-013-2006 https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/geolsymstd.php Digital and/or Hardcopy 2006 publication date FGDC-STD-013-2006 Cartographic standards and some term definitions in dataset glossary nonspatial table. K.K.E. Neuendorf, J.P. Mehl Jr., J.A. Jackson 2011 5th edition, revised, and some recent updates from 2022–2023 online version publication Accessed multiple times 2022–2023; subscription required. https://www.americangeosciences.org/pubs/glossary#online Digital and/or Hardcopy 2011 publication date AGI Glossary of Geology Definitions for the dataset glossary nonspatial table. Morgan W. M. Nasholds, Ryan S. Crow, Tracey J. Felger, Skyler P. Mavor, and Scott E. K. Bennett U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2023 vector digital data https://doi.org/10.5066/P98R9JM3 Digital 2023 publication date This study Digital rendition of the original publication. Ryan Crow and Tracey Felger, USGS 20220407 application/service https://github.com/rcrow/MapExtractor_SchemaConverter Digital 20220407 publication date Map Extractor Tools used to create and manipulate the dataset. C. B. Talbert, D.A. Ignizio, and K. D. Enns. 2017 application/service https://ngmdb.usgs.gov U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/f7v9870d Digital 2017 publication date Metadata Wizard Tool used to create and manipulate the metadata. Phase 1 - This database was compiled in multiple phases, beginning in 2015. Compilation of this map, and the two adjacent maps, initially took place in a single geodatabase that utilized a version of the NCGMP09 schema (the predecessor to GeMS) that had been modified for LOCOS project use. The database was hosted on the LOCOS project SDE server on the USGS campus in Flagstaff, AZ to facilitate multi-user versioned compilation and editing. During this phase, features were compiled intermittently as needed for other uses in the LOCOS project. This was accomplished by heads-up digitizing features of interest from georeferenced scans of the source maps that were downloaded from the National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB). Features were compiled into feature classes ContactsAndFaults, MapUnitLabelPoints, OrientationPoints, and CartographicLines. Map unit polygons were built as needed using the ArcToolbox Feature To Polygon tool and specifying ContactsAndFaults and MapUnitLabelPoints (not included in the published database) as input layers to define polygon boundaries and attributes. For efficiency, only a subset of the fields in each attribute table were populated during compilation, and attribute domains were attached to those fields to streamline data entry and ensure attribute consistency. Topology rules were connected to ContactsAndFaults via a topology layer to ensure topologic integrity. For line and point feature classes, the Type field was populated with the symbol from the FGDC Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbology for the feature (e.g., 01.01.01 for “contact”, and 06.02 for “inclined bedding”). The map unit designation for each polygon was entered as shown on the map in OrigUnit (a project-added field that was deleted in Phase 2) in the MapUnitLabelPoints feature class, using an attached attribute domain. Some map units on the source maps included composite units (e.g., Q3+Q2/QTr), or queried units (e.g., Tc?) and these were entered as-is. Errors or uncertainties that were encountered in the original mapping were preserved and noted in the Notes field of the corresponding feature class, or attributed as exceptions in the topology layer. During Phase 1, about 80% of the geologic features from the three source maps were digitized. Of those, Ryan Crow digitized the majority of the ContactsAndFaults and MapUnitLabelPoints, with Colleen Cassidy, Beth Mennow, and Melissa Ryan making additional contributions. OrientationPoints (primarily those that were fault-related) were digitized by Colleen Cassidy, Melissa Ryan, and Skyler Mavor. The cross section lines from all three maps were digitized as CartographicLines by Colleen Cassidy. Various versions of ArcMap were used for compilation in Phase 1. Parker-NWParker-Whipple24k_USGS_I-1124 Vidal-ParkerSW24k_USGS_I-1125 VidalNWArea24k_USGS_I-1126 FGDC-STD-013-2006 20151001 Ryan S Crow U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Research Geologist mailing address

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 US 928-556-7148 rcrow@usgs.gov Phase 2 – During the pandemic, difficulties accessing the SDE database from off-campus were encountered and the database was taken out of the SDE and into a stand-alone geodatabase in the Spring of 2020. Compilation continued in the stand-alone database, with a focus on digitizing remaining features, and fully populating attribute tables to facilitate conversion to a GeMS-compliant geodatabase. Feature class GeologicLines was added to the geodatabase, and used to compile fold axes and other lines not suitable for inclusion in ContactsAndFaults. Orientation points that were not compiled in Phase 1 were digitized and attributed with corresponding map unit. Some of this work was done manually, and some with scripted workflows. For example, since map units on the source maps included composite units (e.g., Q3+Q2/QTr) a Python-based tool by Ryan Crow, GeomorphUnitConverter, was used to populate MapUnit with the primary map unit, as well as parse the subordinate units into additional attribute fields “UnderUnit” and “InterlacedUnit”, while preserving the original compound unit in “CompositeUnit” in the MapUnitLabelPoints feature class. Another script populated IdenityConfidence as “questionable” for units that were shown as queried (e.g., Tc?) on the source maps. Most of the compilation and database clean-up that was completed during Phase 2 was done by Morgan Nasholds and Ryan Crow. A combination of ArcMap and ArcGIS Pro were used during this phase. Parker-NWParker-Whipple24k_USGS_I-1124 Vidal-ParkerSW24k_USGS_I-1125 VidalNWArea24k_USGS_I-1126 20200401 Morgan WM Nasholds U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Physical Scientist mailing address

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 US 928-556-7216 mnasholds@usgs.gov Phase 3 – The geodatabase in Phase 2 was separated into three geodatabases, one for each source map, using a Python workflow developed by Ryan Crow called MapExtractor. This workflow clipped the compilation database to each map boundary, and automated many of the steps need to convert the database from modified NCGMP09 format into GeMS. These steps included renaming fields to adhere to the GeMS standards, attributing dependent fields based on the value in a specified parent field, and dropping obsolete or unnecessary fields. This phase was done so that a database for each source map could be produced in a GeMS-compliant format and published as a data release. It was completed by Morgan Nasholds with guidance from Ryan Crow. Map Extractor 20220701 Morgan WM Nasholds U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Physical Scientist mailing address

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 US 928-556-7216 mnasholds@usgs.gov Phase 4 – Each database produced in Phase 3 was assigned to a primary author/compiler who oversaw the editing and finalization need to achieve GeMS Level 3 compliance, except for one deviation from the schema. This included finalizing the vector data and creating and populating the nonspatial tables. The GeMS Validate Database and Topology Check tools were run iteratively until the database achieved Level 2 compliance. Level 3 compliance could not be achieved because some fault attitudes in OrientationPoints were populated with two map units (e.g., Kgng/Pc1), reflecting the instances where the map units on either side of the fault at the location of the attitude were different. This deviation from the GeMS standard caused the Validate Database script to fail on criteria 3.8 (No map units without entries in DescriptionOfMapUnits). The database passes all other Level 3 criteria. All work in this and subsequent phases took place in ArcGIS Pro. After the database was as GeMS compliant as possible, the lead compiler created FGDC metadata records for every data element in the geodatabase. This was done using a combination of GeMS metadata tools and instructions, the USGS Metadata Wizard, and USGS metadata resource documents. Morgan Nasholds was the lead compiler for this phase. Tracey Felger provided guidance related to metadata creation. Please refer to the metadata records associated with each data element for details that are not covered in the overview Process Steps presented in this record. Vidal-ParkerSW24k_USGS_I-1125 GeMS toolbox Metadata Wizard 20220701 Morgan WM Nasholds U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Physical Scientist mailing address

Mail Stop 3, 2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 US 928-556-7216 mnasholds@usgs.gov Phase 5 – The database and metadata were reviewed by a GIS specialist not involved in the compilation process. These reviews are part of the USGS review and approval process required by USGS for information products that will be publicly released. 20220801 Dylan W Kinser U.S. Geological Survey Geologist mailing address

350 N. Akron Road

Moffett Field CA 94035 US 530-312-7074 dkinser@usgs.gov Phase 6 – The lead compiler addressed the comments from the data and metadata reviews. Database and metadata standards that were developed by the LOCOS project were also incorporated during this phase. After all changes were made the GeMS Validate Database and Topology Check tools were run iteratively until the database again achieved the highest level of GeMS compliance possible. After the database and metadata were finalized, the data package was prepared for approval and submittal to Science Base and the NGMDB. GeMS toolbox 20230301 Morgan WM Nasholds U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Physical Scientist mailing address

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 US 928-556-7216 mnasholds@usgs.gov Transverse Mercator 0.9996 -117.0 0.0 500000.0 0.0 coordinate pair 0.0001 0.0001 meters North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Geodetic Reference System 1980 6378137.000000 298.257222 Database USGS_I-1125.gdb contains the following elements: non-spatial table DataSources (7 rows); non-spatial table DescriptionOfMapUnits (53 rows); non-spatial table GeoMaterialDict (101 rows); non-spatial table Glossary (25 rows); feature dataset GeologicMap which contains feature class OrientationPoints (186 features), feature class ContactsAndFaults (2844 features), feature class CartographicLines (1 features), feature class GeologicLines (7 features), and feature class MapUnitPolys (1118 features). Detailed descriptions of entities, attributes, and attribute values are given in metadata for constituent elements of the database. See also "GeMS (Geologic Map Schema)--a standard format for the digital publication of geologic maps", available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/standards/GeMS/. U.S. Geological Survey NGMDB mailing address

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS 908

Reston VA 20192 United States ngmdb@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Digital Data https://doi.org/10.5066/P98R9JM3 None. 20230814 Morgan WM Nasholds U.S. Geological Survey, SOUTHWEST REGION Physical Scientist mailing address

2255 North Gemini Drive

Flagstaff AZ 86001 US 928-556-7216 mnasholds@usgs.gov FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time