U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Digital map of Possible Bat Habitats for the Pacific Northwest: a

contribution to the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

by

Thomas P. Frost1, Gary L. Raines2, Carl L. Almquist3, and Bruce R

Johnson1

Open File Report 95-683

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management.

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological

Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

1996

1 - U.S. Geological Survey, Spokane, WA 99201

2 - U.S. Geological Survey, Reno, NV 89557

3 - Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR 97208

i
Contents

Acknowledgments 1

Introduction 1

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 1

Project extent and scale 4

U.S. Geological Survey involvement 4

Data Sources, Processing, and Accuracy 5

Bat Habitat Maps 7

Obtaining Digital Data 19

Obtaining Paper Maps 19

Concluding Remarks 20

References Cited 20

Figures

1: Index map showing the extent of the Landscape Characterization Area of the

Science Integration Team of the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem

Management Project 2

2. Bat habitat legend 23

3. Bat habitat map 24

Tables

1. Source of materials and registration errors for the digital state geologic maps 5

2: Map units classified as having potential for underground openings suitable bat

habitat 8

ii
1

Acknowledgments

Digital compilation products such as this map would not exist without the geologic

mapping of generations of geologists whose work contributed to the small-scale state geologic

maps that have been published by most states. Those agencies that supported the creation of the

state maps include the U.S. Geological Survey, the California Division of Mines and Geology, the

Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, the Nevada

Bureau of Mines and Geology, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, the

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and

the Geological Survey of Wyoming.

We particularly wish to acknowledge Patrick Geehan, the Bureau of Land Management

Deputy Project Coordinator for the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, for recognizing the importance of geology to ecosystem management and for supplying

funds to digitize the Washington, Idaho, and Montana state geologic maps.

Introduction

This report provides background information on the bat habitat map provided by the U.S.

Geological Survey to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). A

page-size copy of the map is shown in Figures 1 and 2 to illustrate the information content. This

report is one in a series of digital maps, data files, and reports generated by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) to provide geologic process and mineral resource information for the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), a U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management interagency project. The various digital maps and data files which were

provided by the USGS, and which are available in this and other reports, are being used in a

geographic information system (GIS)-based ecosystem assessment which includes a

comprehensive analysis of past, present, and future ecosystem conditions within the general area

of the Columbia River Basin east of the Cascade Mountains.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

In January of 1994, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Director of the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under direction of the President of the United States,

initiated what was then called the Eastside Ecosystem Management Project to “develop a

scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for management of eastside forests.” The

project was further directed to “develop an ecosystem management framework and assessment for

land administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on those lands east

of the Cascade crest in Washington and Oregon and within the interior Columbia River Basin.”

The driving force behind the project was the need to develop a strategy for dealing with

anadromous fish habitat and watershed conservation in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Subsequently, when it became clear that similar strategies were needed for anadromous fish in the

remainder of the Columbia River Basin (particularly in Idaho and Montana), the project was

extended to include all of the Columbia River drainage basin in the United States, east of the

Cascade Mountain divide plus the remainder of southeastern Oregon which is not within the

drainage basin (fig. 1). At that time, the project was renamed the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP).

The ICBEMP is producing scientific assessments of current and historic landscape

conditions; of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, species distributions, and populations; and of

economic and social conditions. The project is also producing scientific assessments of the

potential future conditions and possible tradeoffs likely to result from a range of possible

3

disturbances and management practices on public lands in the basin. Although scientific

assessments are being conducted for the entire basin, management decisions that are based on the

assessments will apply to public lands (USFS and BLM) only.

 The goal of the ICBEMP management strategy is to provide management tools which can

be used to sustain or restore ecosystem integrity and to promote products and services desired by

society over the long term. The management strategy is intended to provide tools to balance

ecosystem conditions, resource uses, and competing values of ecosystem users. The intent of the

project is to understand the ramifications of past, present, and future management practices and

man-made or natural disturbances both in the area subject to the management practice or

disturbance and in areas which may be remote, in time and/or space.

The project is organized around two teams, the Science Integration Team and the

Environmental Impact Statement Team, with overlapping membership. Both teams are further

sub-divided into staff areas (sub-teams of subject experts) including: landscape ecology,

aquatic/riparian, terrestrial, forest policy and economics, and social sciences. Many staff scientists

work on both the Science Integration Team and the Environmental Impact Statement Team.

Specific objectives of the project are:

To conduct a broad scientific assessment of the resources within the interior Columbia River

basin to characterize and assess landscape, ecosystem, social, and economic processes and

functions and describe probable outcomes of various management practices and trends.

To develop an ecosystem management framework that includes principles and processes

which may be used in a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process to develop

management direction for federal agencies at all levels within the basin.

To write an Eastside Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) proposing a broad array of

alternative strategies for an area that encompasses ten national forests and portions of four

BLM districts in eastern Washington and Oregon (fig. 1).

To write an Upper Columbia River Basin EIS with a similar array of alternative strategies for

an area that encompasses lands administered by the BLM and USFS in Idaho, western

Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada within the Columbia River Basin (fig. 1).

To conduct a scientific evaluation of issues and alternatives identified through the NEPA

scoping process for the Eastside EIS.

The ICBEMP is an intense, short term project to develop several regionally-consistent,

land-management alternatives. These alternatives, derived from basin-wide analyses of highly

generalized data, will form a framework for land-management decisions at the local level. This

framework will be modified as better data and understanding of the basin are developed. Under

the project, a flexible, basin-wide, digital database will be developed that will evolve and improve

as higher resolution data become available. All data are being collected in a GIS-compatible

format for digital display, analysis, and distribution. Information on the availability of all digital

data sets, paper maps, and other reports generated by the ICBEMP can be obtained from:

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

ATTN: Cindy Dean

112 E. Poplar Street

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 522-4030

or from:
4

Bureau of Land Management

ATTN: Becky Gravenmeier, OR99.2

Oregon - Washington State Office

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, OR 97208

(503) 952-6273

Project extent and scale

The scope and extent of the project area varies as a function of the objective. The scientific

assessment, for example, includes all lands, not just those that are federally managed. This

objective is focused on the Columbia River Basin but is not strictly limited to the actual drainage

basin boundaries. Moreover, some scientific assessment subject sub-teams, by necessity, have

extended their work beyond the limits of the formal project because factors such as wildfires and

wildlife migration are not limited by drainage divides or political boundaries. Most subject subteam project areas are restricted to the Landscape Characterization boundary developed by the

Landscape Ecology group (fig. 1). The scientific assessment is primarily based on information

suitable for compilation at a scale of 1:1,000,000.

U.S. Geological Survey involvement

In June, 1994, the USGS was asked to provide estimates on the value of undiscovered

mineral resources for the Columbia basin. In the course of discussions with members of various

sub-teams from both project teams, it became apparent that additional earth science information

also was highly relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic,

and social systems, and that the USGS could provide this information in a digital format. Within

the ICBEMP’s tight schedule (7 months from the USGS start date until the information had to be

available to the rest of the Science Integration Team), the USGS was able to provide basin-wide,

integrated, digital information about bedrock lithology, rock chemistry, potential animal habitat,

stream sediment geochemistry, volcanic and earthquake hazards, and mineral resources. The

bedrock lithology information is summarized in Johnson and Raines (1995a). The bedrock

chemistry information is summarized in Raines, Johnson, Frost, and Zientek (1996). Potential

animal habitat information is summarized in this report, and regional geochemistry is summarized

in Raines and Smith (1996). Digital hazards information was derived from Algermissen, et al

(1990) and Hoblitt, Miller, and Scott (1987). Mineral resources information is summarized in

Box, et al (1996); Bookstrom, Zientek, et al (1996); Zientek, Bookstrom, Box, and Johnson

(1996); Bookstrom, Raines, and Johnson (1996); and Zientek, Bookstrom, Johnson, and Frost

(1996).

Information on the bat habitat portion of the study is covered by this report. This report

also summarizes the strategy that was used for rapid analyses of regional geologic map data using

GIS techniques to produce the bedrock lithology, rock chemistry, and potential animal habitat

maps, which were all derived from the state geologic maps. Considerably more information was

identified as potentially useful to the ICBEMP, but integrated digital products could not be

provided for the entire study area within the time frame of the assessment.
5

Data Sources, Processing, and Accuracy

The starting points for the bat habitat map and other derivative maps were the geologic maps

of California (Jennings, 1977), scale, 1:750,000; Idaho (Bond and Wood, 1978), scale, 1:500,000;

Montana (Ross, Andres and Witkind, 1955), scale, 1:500,000; Nevada (Stewart and Carlson, 1978),

scale, 1:500,000; Oregon (Walker, MacLeod, 1991), scale, 1:500,000; Utah (Hintze, 1980), scale,

1:500,000; Washington (Hunting and others, 1961), scale, 1:500,000; and Wyoming (Love and

Christiansen, 1985) scale, 1:500,000. Characteristics of the source materials of each of these maps

are summarized in Table 1. All of the maps were processed using the GIS package, ARC/INFO

(ESRI), and based on the results presented in Table 1 are considered accurate geographic

representations of the original maps for the purposes of regional assessments.

Table 1. Source of materials and registration errors for the digital, state geologic maps. The

registration root-mean-square (RMS) errors are obtained while transforming from scanner units of

inches (input in table) to real world coordinates of meters (output in table). These errors are the

RMS difference between the scanned latitude-longitude location points from the source material

and the calculated locations of these points. Where the registration error is queried the data are not

available; however, these maps were all digitized by scanning mylar copies of original publication

material. These normally have an input RMS error of approximately 0.003, much smaller than the

errors obtained from the paper sources used here. The Oregon geologic map was created using

digital techniques so no additional processing was required. The large transform error for the

western Montana sheet was caused by distortion in the southeastern corner of the paper map sheet.

State Date Scale Source Registration Error

Material (RMS)

California 1977 1:750,000 Mylar ?

Idaho 1978 1:500,000 Paper 0.011, 145.720

Montana 1955 1:500,000 Paper Western Montana: 0.076, 965.561

Eastern Montana: 0.011, 133.434

Nevada 1978 1:500,000 Mylar ?

Oregon 1991 1:500,000 Digital N.A.

Utah 1980 1:500,000 Mylar ?

Washington 1961 1:500,000 Mylar 0.015, 189.092

Wyoming 1985 1:500,000 Mylar ?

State geologic maps were selected as the basis for the bat habitat map because their scale

provides an appropriate level of information to satisfy project objectives, and because they cover

large areas, thereby reducing errors inherent in resolving correlation differences between maps. In

addition, several state maps were available in digital form, and the others could be quickly

digitized. The state maps provide considerably more detail and, in some areas, more current

interpretations of the geology than the 1:2,500,000-scale geologic map of the United States (King
6

and Beikman, 1974), even though some of the state maps are relatively old and, in places, do not

represent the most current geologic understanding.

Digital processing of the state geologic maps was accomplished by scanning the source

materials; the scanned images were then vectorized and topologically structured, the lines and

polygons were edited and proofed, attributes were added and proofed, the maps were transformed

from scanner units to geographic coordinates, and finally, map distortions were removed by

rubber-sheeting. The initial objective was to obtain a digital representation that, when plotted,

would overlay the source materials within a line width. Each of the digital state maps meet this

test.

In each state map used, approximately 100 to 200 extremely small polygons were found

that were either ambiguously attributed or un-attributed. These polygons were assigned map-unit

attributes by consultation with regional experts and inspection of more detailed maps.

Geometric accuracy of the digitized source materials was determined by comparing the

calculated locations of 15-25 points with known latitudes and longitudes with the locations of the

same points on the source materials. Table 1 contains the results of this comparison as the

registration root-mean-square error. Except for the western Montana sheet, these errors range

from much less than to slightly larger than the national standard for 1:500,000-scale topographic

base maps which is plus or minus 140 meters horizontally. The Montana maps (2 sheets) were

scanned from old paper versions of the published map because the map is out of print and original

materials are no longer available. The large transform error for the western Montana sheet was

caused by distortion in the southeastern corner of the paper map sheet. To correct for the

geographic distortion of the source maps, the digital maps were then rubber-sheeted to move the

scanned latitude-longitude points to the correct calculated locations. This rubber-sheet correction

provides the most accurate representation of the individual state geologic maps.

Digital versions of individual state geologic maps are available as follows:

California: California Division of Mines and Geology, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341, 

Sacramento, CA 95814

Idaho: Descriptive report: Johnson and Raines (1996b); digital files can be 

downloaded from the USGS public access World Wide Web site on the

Internet:

URL = http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/geologic/id/idaho.html

Montana: Descriptive report: Raines and Johnson (1996a); digital files can be 

downloaded via anonymous FTP from the USGS publicaccess site: 

greenwood.cr.usgs.gov in the directory: /pub/open-file-report/ofr-95-0691

Nevada: Turner and Bawiec (1991) CD-ROM

Oregon: Data files are available via anonymous FTP from a USGS public access 

site, greenwood.cr.usgs.gov in the following subdirectory: /pub/oregon

Utah: Data files are available via anonymous FTP from a USGS public access 

site, greenwood.cr.usgs.gov in the following subdirectory: /pub/utah

Washington: Descriptive report: Raines and Johnson (1996b) ; digital files can be 

URL = http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/geologic/wa/washington.html
7

Wyoming: Descriptive report: Green and Drouillard (1994); the data files are available

via anonymous FTP from a USGS public access site:

greenwood.cr.usgs.gov in the directory: /pub/open-file-reports/ofr-94-0425

As a final step, the individual state maps were edge-matched by rubber-sheeting along their

boundaries to fit the adjacent state maps. Because of the differences in how the digital maps had

been prepared, there are differences in geometric accuracy from state to state. The Oregon state

map was originally prepared digitally; so the published and digital version are identical. The

Wyoming map was digitized from original source materials, and the California, Nevada, and Utah

maps were prepared from base-stable copies of original source materials. These four maps have

an root-mean-square error of registration near 0.003 inches. Because these maps have higher

geometric accuracy than the Idaho, Montana, and Washington maps, the later three maps were

rubber-sheeted to fit the more accurate California, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming maps

along their common boundaries. The maximum translation needed to match boundaries was

approximately 400 meters; in most areas 200 meters or less were needed. The remaining borders

were then rubber-sheeted to a compromise boundary to make a composite of all of the states.

Because the Idaho-Montana border is very irregular and the two state maps used different base

materials, many adjustments were required. Consequently this is the area of largest residual

geometric error. Because of the differences in geologic representation between the state maps, the

state boundaries were maintained in the bedrock lithology digital composite and were only

eliminated in derivative maps.

As a partial test of the digitizing and attributing of the individual state maps, all derivative

maps were checked for differences at the state boundaries. A few incorrectly labeled map units

and areas where the map units were defined differently across state boundaries were identified.

Examples include a rock unit mapped as granitic gneiss in one state and granite in the adjacent

state, and several sedimentary facies changes that occur in the vicinity of state boundaries. To

evaluate these problems and refine some of the interpretive maps, newer, larger-scale, geologic

maps were examined and regional geology experts were consulted. National Uranium Resource

Evaluation stream sediment geochemistry was also used where available to test the geochemical

interpretations of the lithologic information (Raines and Smith, 1995).

Bat Habitat Maps

Wild animals are dependent on physical characteristics of the landscape to provide their

homes. Cave-dwelling bats make their homes in limestone caves, lava tubes, and mines. These

animals will also live in openings in buildings, under bridges, and natural pockets, ledges, or

cracks in any available rock, that is any type of protected dark space. This bat-habitat map is not,

therefore, a comprehensive map of cave dwelling bat habitats, but does show areas known or

suspected to contain prime habitat considering only the dwelling requirements that can be

addressed through readily derived geological data. It shows areas that are geologically favorable to

host caves and caverns, given the scale and level of information inherent in the original state

geologic mapping.

The bat habitat map identifies areas where limestone caves or lava tubes can occur and

where they are known to occur. It also shows locations of known underground mines. Areas on

the map that are identified as having potential for limestone caves are areas where formations of

thick limestone and dolomite are found, defined as the high areas on the calcium map (Raines,

Johnson, Frost, and Zientek, 1995). A second category is identified that is characterized by

lithologies with significant, but thinner or discontinuous beds of limestone or dolomite. Areas
8

assigned to this category generally correspond to medium areas from the calcium map (Raines,

Johnson, Frost, and Zientek, 1995). Lava tubes generally form in basaltic lava flows and are

known especially to exist in many young basalt units. Because these features form at the earth's

surface and are physically unstable, only the youngest ones are preserved. Included are areas of

known lava tubes such as Crater's of the Moon in Idaho and Lava Tubes National Monument in

California, and extensive lava tubes around Bend, Oregon. The underground mines are taken from

the U.S. Bureau of Mines MILS data base. These mine locations are noted as points in the data

base and are represented here as small areas having a 1 kilometer radius around the mines because

it is very common to find clusters of mine openings where only one point is noted in the data base.

This map represents one geologic factor of many factors defining the habitat of cave dwelling bats.

Table 2 describes specific map units from the state maps that were classified as potential bat

habitats.

The bat habitat map should be considered a model exploring the geologic characteristics

which a specific species finds suitable as habitat. Other similar maps can be derived from digital

geologic coverages that would identify any other known factor, or combination of factors, that a

species of plant or animal finds attractive or necessary. Such maps will become especially

powerful tools when geologic factors are combined with topographic, climatic, geographic, slopeaspect, vegetation, or other map coverages.

Table 2: Map units classified as having potential for underground openings suitable bat habitat.

Listed are the map units for each state map, a brief lithologic description from those map legends,

and the bat-habitat categories. Carbonate habitat indicates map units having thick carbonate rocks

which, could form caves. Habitat classified as some carbonate indicates map units with thin

carbonate beds that may form some caves or other small openings. Lava tubes indicates map units

known to have lava tubes. The lithologic descriptions are sometimes truncated due to field length

limitations. Note that the map units use the following substitutions: C, Cambrian; TR, Triassic;

PN or P, Pennsylvania: PP, Permian-Pennsylvanian; M, Mississippian.

Map Unit

Lithologic Description

Habitat

Washington:

Cls

Cambrian limestone and dolomite

carbonate

Pcd

Precambrian rocks, undivided

some carb

Qv

Pleistocene-Recent volcanic rocks

lava tube

TR

Triassic sedimentary rocks, undivided

carbonate

pTm
9

Pre-Tertiary metamorphic rocks, undivided

some carb

Idaho:

C

Cambrian marine dolomite, limestone, claystone, and

quartzite

carbonate

Cun

Upper Cambrian dolomitic limestone and claystone of

northern Idaho

carbonate

D

Devonian bedded dolomite and limestone interval of

eastern and southern Idaho

carbonate

DO

Devonian to Ordovician marine calcareous sediments

north of the Snake Plain

some carb

DS

Devonian and Silurian shallow-water marine carbonate

units of east-central

carbonate

Jl

Lower Jurassic shaley, sandy limestone overlaying red,

crossbedded sandstone

carbonate

Ku

Upper Cretaceous thick detrital and fresh-water

limestone

 carbonate

M

Mississippian shallow-water carbonates-to-clastic

sequence of east-central

carbonate

MD

Lower Mississippian and Devonian marine dolomite

and limestone of eastern Idaho

carbonate

Ms

Mississippian shallow-water coralline limestone

interval of southern Idaho

carbonate

O

Ordovician marine dolomite, quartzite, and limestone

carbonate

Occ
10

Ordovician and Cambrian thrusted dolomite, siltstone,

and quartzite of central Idaho

carbonate

Ol

Lower Ordovician dolomite, nodular cherty limestone,

and intraformational

carbonate

Ou

Upper and Middle Ordovician dolomite and quartzite

carbonate

PNM

Pennsylvanian and Mississippian shallow-water

carbonates of eastern Idaho

carbonate

PPNs

Lower Permian to Middle Pennsylvanian chert,

limestone, and sandstone of southern Idaho

some carb

Pzl

Lower Paleozoic marine carbonate and clastic units

southeast of the Snake Plain

carbonate

Pzu

Upper Paleozoic marine sediments in southern Idaho

some carb

Ps

Lower Permian beds; uppermost portion of southern

Idaho sequence

some carb

Qtb

Lower Pleistocene to Pliocene basalts with associated

tuffs and volcanic detritus

lava tube

Qpmb

Middle Pleistocene canyon-filling basalt in and near

Snake Plain

lava tube

Qpu1b

Upper Pleistocene Snake Plain lava flows

lava tube

Qpu2b

Upper Pleistocene Snake Plain lava flows

lava tube

Qpu3b

Upper Pleistocene Snake Plain lava flows

lava tube

Qpu4b

Upper Pleistocene Snake Plain lava flows

lava tube
11

Qpu?b

Upper Pleistocene Snake Plain lava flows

lava tube

Qpub

Upper Pleistocene Snake Plain lava flows

lava tube

Qrb

Recent, relatively unweathered Snake Plain basalt flows

and cinder cones

lava tube

S

Upper and Middle Silurian fossiliferous dolomite

carbonate

SO

Silurian to Middle Ordovician marine carbonate-toclastic strata of east-central Idaho

carbonate

Trl

Lower Triassic limestone and chert above shaley

sandstone, siltstone, and limestone

carbonate

Y3n

Precambrian dark-colored calcareous and dolomitic

argillite and siltite

some carb

Montana:

Cu

Cambrian, undifferentiated

some carb

Du

Devonian, undifferentiated

some carb

Kg

Greenhorn formation

some carb

Kn

Niobrara formation

some carb

Mu

Mississippian, undifferentiated

carbonate

Ou

Ordovician, undifferentiated

some carb

Pu

Permian, undifferentiated

some carb
12

pCa

Belt Series - Altyn limestone

carbonate

pCh

Belt Series - Helena limestone

carbonate

pCn

Belt Series - Newland limestone

carbonate

pCpi

Belt Series - Piegan group

some carb

pCpi?

Belt Series - Piegan group, queried

some carb

pCsi

Belt Series - Siyeh limestone

carbonate

pCw

Belt Series - Wallace formation

some carb

pCwc

Belt Series - Wallace formation

carbonate

Wyoming:

TRad

Ankareh Formation, Thaynes Limestone, Woodside

Shale and Dinwoody Formation

some carb

TRcd

Chugwater and Dinwoody Formations

some carb

TRcd

Chugwater and Dinwoody Formations

some carb

Kg

Gannett Group--Includes Smoot Formation, Draney

Limestone, Bechler Conglomerate, Peterson Limestone,

and Ephraim

some carb

Kgb

Greenhorn Formation and Belle Fourche Shale

carbonate

Kgbm

Greenhorn Formation and Belle Fourche and Mowry

Shales

 carbonate
13

Kn

Niobrara Formation

carbonate

Knc

Niobrara Formation and Carlile Shale

carbonate

Knt

Niobrara and Frontier Formations, and Mowry and

Thermopolis Shales

carbonate

MD

Madison Limestone and Darby Formation

carbonate

MD

Madison Group and Three Forks and Jefferson

Formations

 carbonate

MD

Madison Group and Darby Formation

carbonate

MDO

Madison Limestone, Darby or Three Forks, Jefferson,

and Beartooth Butte Formations, and Bighorn Dolomite

carbonate

MDe

Pahasapa and Englewood Limestones

carbonate

MDg

Guernsey Formation--Locally Includes Dolomite and

Sandstone of Devonian and Cambrian(?) Age

carbonate

MO

Madison Limestone and Bighorn Dolomite--East Side

of Bighorn Mountains

carbonate

Mm

Madison Limestone

carbonate

Mm

Madison Limestone or Group--Includes Wedge Edge

of Bighorn Dolomite in Tps. 43 and 44 N., Rgs. 85 and

86 w.

carbonate

Mm

Madison Group

carbonate

OC

Bighorn Dolomite, Gallatin Limestone, and Gros

Ventre Formation
14

some carb

OC

Bighorn Dolomite, Snowy Range Formation, Pilgrim

Limestone, Park Shale, Meager Limestone, Wolsey

Shale, and Flathead

some carb

OC

Whitewood Dolomite, and Winnipeg and Deadwood

Formations

some carb

O C

Bighorn Dolomite, Gallatin Limestone, Gros Ventre

Formation, and Flathead Sandstone Gallatin Limestone,

Gros Ventre

some carb

Ob

Bighorn Dolomite

carbonate

P&M

Casper Formation and Madison Limestone

carbonate

P&M

Casper Formation and Madison Limestone

carbonate

P&M

Wells and Amsden Formations

carbonate

P&Ma

Phosphoria Formation and Related Rocks, Quadrant

Sandstone, and Amsden Formation

carbonate

P&Ma

Phosphoria, Wells, and Amsden Formations

carbonate

P&Ma

Phosphoria Formation and Related Rocks, Tensleep

Sandstone, and Amsden Formation

carbonate

P&h

Hartville Formation

some carb

PM

Tensleep Sandstone and Amsden Formation

some carb

Pfs

Forelle Limestone and Satanka Shale

carbonate

Pmo

Minnekahta Limestone and Opeche Shale
15

carbonate

Pzr

Madison Limestone and Cambrian Rocks Cambrian

Rocks

carbonate

Pzr

Minnekahta Limestone, Opeche Shale, Minnelusa

Formation, Pahasapa and Englewood Limestones,

Whitewood Dolomite

carbonate

Pzr

Madison Limestone, Darby Formation, Bighorn

Dolomite, Gallatin Limestone, Gros Ventre Formation,

and Flathead Sandstone

carbonate

Qb

Basalt Flows and Intrusive Igneous Rocks

lava tube

Sl

Laketown Dolomite--Uinta County

carbonate

Twg

Wasatch and Green River Formations, New Fork

Tongue of Wasatch and Fontenelle Tongue or Member

of Green River

some carb

Cr

Gallatin Limestone, Gros Verde Formation and

Equivalents and Flathead Sandstone

some carb

Utah:

C2

sedimentary

carbonate

C3

sedimentary

some carb

D

sedimentary

carbonate

J1

sedimentary

carbonate

M1

sedimentary

carbonate

M2
16

sedimentary

carbonate

O

sedimentary

carbonate

P2

sedimentary

carbonate

PN

sedimentary

carbonate

PNP

sedimentary

carbonate

Qb

volcanic

lava tube

S

sedimentary

carbonate

T2

sedimentary/volcanic

some carb

TR1

sedimentary

carbonate

Nevada:

Cc

Limestone and Dolomite, Locally Thick Sequences of

Shale and Siltstone

carbonate

Ct

Shale and Thin-Bedded or Laminated Limestone; Also

Thinly Interbedded Limestone and Chert

some carb

DCc

Dolomite and Limestone

carbonate

Dc

Dolomite, Limestone, and Minor Amounts of

Sandstone and Quartzite

carbonate

Dt

Argillaceous Limestone, Chert, and Shale

carbonate

Mc

Limestone and Minor Amounts of Dolomite and Shale
17

carbonate

Ml

Massive Limestone

carbonate

OCc

Dolomite and Limestone

carbonate

Oc

Limestone, Dolomite, Shale, and Quartzite

carbonate

PMc

Limestone, Dolomite, and Shale

carbonate

PPa

Antler Sequence of Silberling and Roberts

some carb

PPc

Limestone and Sparse Dolomite, Siltstone, and

Sandstone

 carbonate

PPcd

Sandy and Silty Limestone, Conglomerate, and

Siltstone

carbonate

Pc

Limestone

carbonate

Pc+

Cherty Limestone and Sparse Dolomite, Shale, and

Sandstone

 carbonate

Pcd

Limestone, Cherty Limestone, Sandy Limestone, and

Chert-Pebble Conglomerate

carbonate

Psc

Siltstone, Sandstone, Limestone and Dolomite

(Commonly Silty or Sandy) and Gypsum

some carb

SOc

Dolomite

carbonate

Sc

Dolomite

carbonate

St

Platy Limestone and Limy Siltstone, Chert at Base

carbonate

TRPs
18

Silty Limestone, Minor Amounts of Shale, and Some

Greenstone

carbonate

TRc

Limestone, Minor Amounts of Dolomite, Shale, and

Sandstone; Locally Thick Conglomerate Units

carbonate

TRmt

Moenkopi Formation, Thaynes Formation, and Related

Rocks

some carb

California:

C

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks

some carb

D

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks

carbonate

Kjfm

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks

some carb

Qv

volcanic rocks

lava tube

Qv?

volcanic rocks

lava tube

TR

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks

some carb

ls

Marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks

carbonate

Oregon:

Psv

Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks, Partly

Metamorphosed (Permian and Permian?)

some carb

QTb

Basalt (Pleistocene and Pliocene)

lava tube

QTba

Basalt and Basaltic Andesite (Pleistocene and Pliocene)
19

lava tube

Tvm

Mafic Vent Deposits (Pleistocene, Pliocene, and

Miocene?)

lava tube

Qb

Basalt and Basaltic Andesite (Holocene and

Pleistocene)

lava tube

Qlb

Late Basalt (Holocene or Upper Pleistocene)

lava tube

Obtaining Digital Data

The digital files which were used to make the bat habitat map are available as GIS

coverages and associated data files. All data files and map images are maintained in the projection

used for all ICBEMP products:

Projection: Albers Equal Area

1st Standard Parallel: 43° N

2nd Standard Parallel: 48° N

Central Meridian: 117° W

Origin of Projection: 41° N

Y-offset (false easting): 700,000 m

To obtain copies of the digital data, do one of the following:

1. Download the digital files from the USGS public access World Wide Web:

URL = http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/geologic/northwest_region/ofr95-683.html

or anonymous FTP from wrgis.wr.usgs.gov, in the directory:

 pub/geologic/northwest_region/misc/ofr95-683

These internet sites contain the bat habitat GIS coverage in Arc/Info Export file format as well as

the associated data files and Arc/Info macro programs which are used to plot the map at a scale of

1:2,000,000. Use of this data requires a GIS that is capable of reading Arc/Info Export formatted

files and a computer capable of reading UNIX ASCII files. To use these files on a DOS

computer, they must be put through a unix-to-dos filter. Or,

2. Obtain the digital files from the ICBEMP project office. Contact information is given in

the section, The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, above.

Obtaining Paper Maps

Paper copies of the bat habitat map are not available from the USGS at this time.

However, with access to the Internet and access to a large-format color plotter, a 1:2,000,000-scale

paper copy of the map can be made, as follows:

1. Download the digital version of the complete map from the USGS public access World

Wide Web site on the Internet.

URL = http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/geologic/northwest_region/ofr95-683.html
20

or anonymous FTP from wrgis.wr.usgs.gov, in the directory:

 pub/geologic/northwest_region/misc/ofr95-683

These internet sites contain a file, bat2m.hp, which is in HPGL2 graphics language.

2. This file can be plotted by any large-format graphics plotter which can interpret the HPGL2

language. The finished plot is 29 by 39 inches.

Paper copies of the map can also be created by obtaining one of the versions of the digital

files as described above, and then creating a plot file in a GIS.

Concluding Remarks

Derivative maps produced from state map scale geology are an appropriate first step to

providing a regional context for land management decisions. The applications these maps are

intended to address are very general. The 1:500,000 scale of the data is appropriate to regional

applications concerning the entire Columbia River Basin. Although some of the state geologic

maps are old, much of the evolution of geologic knowledge since the 1970's has been concerned

with the temporal correlation of rock units, with details of the compositions of the individual units,

and with when and how the existing spatial arrangement of rock units came to exist. These types

of information have little bearing on the derivative maps presented here. Thus, the dominant

lithologic character of the rock units is generally well represented in the state geologic maps and the

maps are appropriate to regional applications in most areas.

Fundamental geologic information is a critical portion of any ecosystem study and should

be part of the basis for land management decisions. Future ecosystem monitoring and adaptive

management planning within the Columbia River Basin should include studies to improve the

quality of the geologic data base.

References Cited

Algermissen, S. T., Perkins, D. M., Thenhaus, P. C., Hanson, S. L., and Bender, B. L., 1990,

Probabilistic earthquake acceleration and velocity maps for the United States and Puerto

Rico: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF-2120, scale

1:7,500,000.

Bond, J. G. and Wood, C. H., 1978, Geologic map of Idaho: Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau

of Mines and Geology, 1 figure, Scale 1:500,000.

Bookstrom, A. A., Raines, G. L., and Johnson, B. R., 1995, Digital mineral resource maps of

phosphate and natural aggregate in the Pacific Northwest: a contribution to the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 95-681, 28 pp.

Bookstrom, A. A., Zientek, M. L., Box, S. E., Derkey, P. D., Elliott, J. E., Frishman, David,

Ashley, R. P., Evarts, R. C., Stoesser, D.B., Moyer, L. A., Cox, D. P., and Ludington,

Steve, 1996, Status and metal content of significant metallic mineral deposits in the Pacific

Northwest: a contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-688, 96 pp.

Box, S. E., Bookstrom, A. A., Zientek, M. L., Derkey, P. D., Ashley, R. P., Elliott, J. E., and

Peters, S. G., 1996, Assessment of undiscovered mineral resources in the Pacific

Northwest: a contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-682, 425 pp.
21

Green, G. N. and Drouillard, P. H., 1994, The digital geologic map of Wyoming in ARC/INFO

format: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-0425, 10 pp.

Hintze, L. F., 1980, Geologic map of Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, 2 figures,

1:500,000 scale.

Hoblitt, R. P., Miller, C. D., and Scott, W. E., 1987, Volcanic hazards with regard to siting nuclear

power plants in the Pacific Northwest: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-297,

196 pp.

Hunting, M. T., Bennett, W. A., Livingston, V. E., Jr., and Moen, W. S., 1961, Geologic map of

Washington: Washington Dept. of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1

figure, scale 1:500,000.

Jennings. C. W., 1977, Geologic map of California: California Divisions of Mines and Geology,

Map No. 2, 1 figure, Scale 1:750,000.

Johnson, B.R. and Raines, G.L., 1995, Digital map of major lithologic bedrock units for the

Pacific Northwest: a contribution to the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report-680, 36 p. plus 2 figures.

Johnson, B. R. and Raines, G. L., 1996, Digital representation of the Idaho state geologic map: a

contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-690, 22 pp.

King, P. B., and Beikman, H. M., 1974, Geologic Map of United States: U.S. Geological Survey,

2 figures, scale 1:2,500,000.

Love, J. D., and Christiansen, Ann Coe, 1985, Geologic map of Wyoming: U.S. Geological

Survey, 3 Figures, Scale 1:500,000.

Raines, G. L. and Johnson, B. R., 1996a, Digital representation of the Montana state geologic map:

map: a contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-691, 36 pp.

_____, 1996b, Digital representation of the Washington state geologic map: a contribution to the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 95-684, 20 pp.

Raines, G. L., Johnson, B. R., Frost, T. P., and Zientek, M. L., 1996, Digital maps of

compositionally classified lithologies derived from 1:500,000 scale geologic maps for the

Pacific Northwest: a contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-685, 29 pp.

Raines, G. L. and Smith, C. L., 1996, Digital maps of National Uranium Resource Evaluation

(NURE) geochemistry for the Pacific Northwest: a contribution to the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-686,

22 pp.

Ross, C. P., Andres, D. A., and Witkind, I. J., 1955, Geologic map of Montana: U.S. Geological

Survey, 1 figure, Scale 1:500,000.

Stewart, J. H. and Carlson, J. E., 1978, Geologic map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, 1

figure, scale 1:500,000.

Turner, R. M., and Bawiec, W. J., 1991, Geology of Nevada - a digital representation of the 1978

geologic map of Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series, DDS-2, 1 CDROM.

Walker, G. W. and MacLeod, N. S., 1991, Geologic map of Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey, 2

figures, scale 1:500,000.
22

Zientek, M. L., Bookstrom, A. A., Box, S. E., and Johnson, B. R., 1995, Future minerals related

activity, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project area: an overview: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-687, 30 pp.

Zientek, M. L., Bookstrom, A. A., Johnson, B. R., and Frost, T. P., in prep., Digital maps of acid

mine-drainage potential in the Pacific Northwest: a contribution to the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-692.
Figure 2

23

In figure 3, the mine locations shown are representative of the 

entire data set. The complete data is available in the largerscale GIS and plotting files available for downloading from: 

http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/geologic/northwest_region/ofr-95-683.html

Potential bat habitat map explanation

Carbonate rocks — areas with high potential for

limestone caverns

Some carbonate rocks — areas with some potential

for limestone caverns

Quaternary basalts — areas with high potential for 

lava tubes

Underground mines. From USBM MILS data
Albers Equal Area projection

24

Figure 3. Areas with potential bat habitat, derived from lithologic characteristics and mine loca