SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Geosciences”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

USGS2009

Appendix B: Description of Map Units for Northeast Asia Summary Geodynamics Map

The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2010

Appendix C: Summary of Major Metallogenic Belts in Northeast Asia (the Russian Far East, Yakutia, Siberia, Transbaikalia, Northern China, Mongolia, South Korea, and Japan)

Professional Paper↗

USGS2023

Guidance on geologic names usage for authors and peer reviewers of geologic maps and reports—A primer on stratigraphic nomenclature

Introduction Consistent and effective communication is essential for scientific publications. Scientific communication requires clear explanations and precise discussion of data and interpretations. “Authors must strive for clarity, consistency, and correct usage of both formal and informal terminology because of the complex interactions between time and space interpreted from the presently existing stratigraphic record” (Owen, 2009). The importance of consistent stratigraphic nomenclature as a means of effective geologic communication has been recognized since the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established the Geologic Names Committee (GNC) in 1899 to evaluate and address issues of stratigraphic nomenclature. The GNC currently consists of geologists from the USGS and the Association of American State Geologists. In an effort towards codifying stratigraphic nomenclature, the North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature developed the North American Stratigraphic Code (referred to hereafter as “the Code”; North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN], 2021) in 1983 by revising and updating preexisting codes that were then in use, such as the International Stratigraphic Guide [ISG] (International Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classification [ISSC], 1976; see also, ISSC, 1994). Consistency in geologic names usage increases accuracy and quality of scientific publications. All formal USGS publications require a geologic names review (GNR) if any stratigraphic, lithodemic, geochronologic, or chronostratigraphic terminology is used. This review of, and guidance for, geologic names usage and stratigraphic principles should be referred to by authors and peer reviewers, not just those who conduct GNRs, and its guidance should be incorporated into their publications to improve geoscience communication. The notes and guidance in the sections that follow should be considered by USGS geologists and editors while writing or reviewing manuscripts that include geologic names and stratigraphic concepts. This primer may also be used by geologists and editors outside of the USGS for consistency with their publications.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2013

Metallogenic belt and mineral deposit maps of northeast Asia

This report contains explanatory material and summary tables for lode mineral deposits and placer districts (Map A, sheet 1) and metallogenic belts of Northeast Asia (Maps B, C, and D on sheets 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The map region includes eastern Siberia, southeastern Russia, Mongolia, northeast China, and Japan. A large group of geologists—members of the joint international project, Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of Northeast Asia—prepared the maps, tables, and introductory text. This is a cooperative project with the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian National University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolian Technical University, Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia, Geological Research Institute, Jilin University, China Geological Survey, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Geological Survey of Japan, and U.S. Geological Survey. This report is one of a series of reports on the mineral resources, geodynamics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia. Companion studies include (1) a detailed geodynamics map of Northeast Asia (Parfenov and others, 2003); (2) a compilation of major mineral deposit models (Rodionov and Nokleberg, 2000; Rodionov and others, 2000); (3) a series of metallogenic belt maps (Obolenskiy and others, 2004); (4) location map of lode mineral deposits and placer districts of Northeast Asia (Ariunbileg and others, 2003b); (5) descriptions of metallogenic belts (Rodionov and others, 2004); (6) a database on significant metalliferous and selected nonmetalliferous lode deposits and selected placer districts (Ariunbileg and others, 2003a); and (7) a series of summary project publications (Ariunbileg and 74 others, 2003b).

Asia↗

USGS2007

Undiscovered locatable mineral resources in the Bay Resource Management Plan Area, southwestern Alaska: A probabilistic assessment

The Bay Resource Management Plan (RMP) area in southwestern Alaska, north and northeast of Bristol Bay contains significant potential for undiscovered locatable mineral resources of base and precious metals, in addition to metallic mineral deposits that are already known. A quantitative probabilistic assessment has identified 24 tracts of land that are permissive for 17 mineral deposit model types likely to be explored for within the next 15 years in this region. Commodities we discuss in this report that have potential to occur in the Bay RMP area are Ag, Au, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mo, Pb, Sn, W, Zn, and platinum-group elements. Geoscience data for the region are sufficient to make quantitative estimates of the number of undiscovered deposits only for porphyry copper, epithermal vein, copper skarn, iron skarn, hot-spring mercury, placer gold, and placer platinum-deposit models. A description of a group of shallow- to intermediate-level intrusion-related gold deposits is combined with grade and tonnage data from 13 deposits of this type to provide a quantitative estimate of undiscovered deposits of this new type. We estimate that significant resources of Ag, Au, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mo, Pb, and Pt occur in the Bay Resource Management Plan area in these deposit types. At the 10th percentile probability level, the Bay RMP area is estimated to contain 10,067 metric tons silver, 1,485 metric tons gold, 12.66 million metric tons copper, 560 million metric tons iron, 8,100 metric tons mercury, 500,000 metric tons molybdenum, 150 metric tons lead, and 17 metric tons of platinum in undiscovered deposits of the eight quantified deposit types. At the 90th percentile probability level, the Bay RMP area is estimated to contain 89 metric tons silver, 14 metric tons gold, 911,215 metric tons copper, 330,000 metric tons iron, 1 metric ton mercury, 8,600 metric tons molybdenum and 1 metric ton platinum in undiscovered deposits of the eight deposit types. Other commodities, which may occur in the Bay RMP area, include Cr, Sn, W, Zn, and other platinum-group elements such as Ir, Os, and Pd. We define 13 permissive tracts for 9 additional deposit model types. These are: Besshi- and Cyprus, and Kuroko-volcanogenic massive sulfides, hot spring gold, low sulfide gold veins, Mississippi-Valley Pb-Zn, tin greisen, zinc skarn and Alaskan-type zoned ultramafic platinum-group element deposits. Resources in undiscovered deposits of these nine types have not been quantified, and would be in addition to those in known deposits and the undiscovered resources listed above. Additional mineral resources also may occur in the Bay RMP area in deposit types, which were not considered here.

Alaska↗

USGS2007

Geoinformatics 2007: data to knowledge

Geoinformatics is the term used to describe a variety of efforts to promote collaboration between the computer sciences and the geosciences to solve complex scientific questions. It refers to the distributed, integrated digital information system and working environment that provides innovative means for the study of the Earth systems, as well as other planets, through use of advanced information technologies. Geoinformatics activities range from major research and development efforts creating new technologies to provide high-quality, sustained production-level services for data discovery, integration and analysis, to small, discipline-specific efforts that develop earth science data collections and data analysis tools serving the needs of individual communities. The ultimate vision of Geoinformatics is a highly interconnected data system populated with high quality, freely available data, as well as, a robust set of software for analysis, visualization, and modeling.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2008

Geoinformatics 2008 - Data to Knowledge

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2013

Porphyry copper assessment of Southeast Asia and Melanesia: Chapter D in Global mineral resource assessment

The U.S. Geological Survey collaborated with member countries of the Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia (CCOP) on an assessment of the porphyry copper resources of Southeast Asia and Melanesia as part of a global mineral resource assessment. The region hosts world-class porphyry copper deposits and underexplored areas that are likely to contain undiscovered deposits. Examples of known porphyry copper deposits include Batu Hijau and Grasberg in Indonesia; Panguna, Frieda River, and Ok Tedi in Papua New Guinea; and Namosi in Fiji. This assessment covers the countries of Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Thailand, and parts of southeastern China, India, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji. Twenty-two geographic areas were delineated as tracts that are permissive for porphyry copper deposits in Southeast Asia. Permissive tracts are grouped into four broadly defined geographic/geologic areas, as follows: (1) the Indochina Peninsula area, (2) Indonesian and Malaysian Islands, (3) New Guinea Island and Papuan New Guinea islands, and (4) Melanesia. Individual tracts range from less than 1,000 to more than 350,000 square kilometers in area. Permissive tracts are based on mapped and inferred subsurface (<1 kilometer depth) distributions of igneous rocks of specific age ranges that define magmatic arcs and magmatic belts that are likely to contain porphyry copper deposits. Most of these magmatic arcs are subduction-related, although some have porphyry-style deposits occurring in postcollisional and (or) poorly understood tectonic settings. Although maps at a variety of different scales were used in the compilation, the final tract boundaries are intended for use at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Global grade and tonnage models for porphyry copper deposits were evaluated. Most of the known deposits are best described as fitting the copper-gold (Cu-Au) subtype of porphyry copper deposit. For some permissive tracts, a general porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum (Cu-Au-Mo) model was used. Assessment participants estimated numbers of undiscovered deposits at different levels of confidence for most of the permissive tracts. These estimates were combined with grade and tonnage models using a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate undiscovered resources. Additional resources in extensions of deposits with identified resources were not evaluated. Assessment results, presented in tables and graphs, show mean amounts of metal and mineralized rock in undiscovered deposits at different quantile levels, as well as the arithmetic mean for each tract. This assessment estimated a mean of 89 undiscovered porphyry copper deposits for the assessed permissive tracts in Southeast Asia and Melanesia. About 288 million metric tons (Mt) of copper and 18,000 metric tons (t) of gold, as well as byproduct molybdenum and silver, could be associated with undiscovered deposits. This represents about four times the number of deposits with identified resources (23) already discovered in Southeast Asia; reliable reported identified resources for those 23 deposits total 84 Mt of copper and 6,000 t of gold. Eleven permissive tracts have no known porphyry copper deposits with reported resources. Three of those 11 tracts lacked sufficient information for a probabilistic assessment and are discussed in qualitative terms. On a regional basis, both the Indochina Peninsula area and the Indonesian-Malaysian Islands area are estimated to contain about 10 times as much in place copper in undiscovered porphyry copper deposits as has been identified to date. For the New Guinea Island areas, the ratio of undiscovered to identified copper resources is about 2. Some parts of the region have a long history of porphyry exploration cycles and mine development, interrupted at times by political and social unrest, environmental concerns, and natural disasters. Changes in mining laws within the region and the recent high price of gold on the world market have prompted renewed interest in porphyry copper deposits in Southeast Asia and Melanesia. However, predicted undiscovered deposits may not be found, and if found, may not be developed. This assessment includes an overview of the assessment results with summary tables. Detailed descriptions of each tract are included in appendixes, with estimates of numbers of undiscovered deposits, and probabilistic estimates of amounts of copper, molybdenum, gold, and silver that could be contained in undiscovered deposits for each permissive tract. A geographic information system (GIS) that accompanies the report includes tract boundaries and a database of known porphyry copper deposits and significant prospects.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2014

Porphyry copper assessment of eastern Australia

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts national and global assessments of resources (mineral, energy, water, and biologic) to provide science in support of decision making. Mineral resource assessments provide syntheses of available information about where mineral deposits are known and suspected to occur in the Earth’s crust and which commodities may be present, together with estimates of amounts of resources that may be present in undiscovered deposits. The USGS collaborated with geologists of the Geological Survey of New South Wales and Geoscience Australia (formerly the Australian Geological Survey Organisation) on an assessment of Phanerozoic-age porphyry copper resources in Australia. Porphyry copper deposits contain about 11 percent of the identified copper resources in Australia. This study addresses resources of known porphyry copper deposits and expected resources of undiscovered porphyry copper deposits in eastern Australia. A three-part form of assessment was used for estimation of undiscovered resources. Using this method, four tracts were delineated that are permissive for porphyry copper deposits. A probabilistic estimate of the expected number of deposits in each tract was prepared on the basis of existing information about geology, geochemistry, geophysics, exploration history, and mineral occurrences. Monte Carlo simulation was used to combine the estimated number of deposits with an appropriate model of grade and tonnage for porphyry copper deposits to provide a probabilistic estimate of metal content and total tonnage for undiscovered deposits. The Delamerian permissive tract comprises igneous rocks of Cambrian age in the Delamerian Orogen, which borders the western margin of the Tasmanides. The Delamerian tract contains no known porphyry copper deposits, but the Adelaide sub-tract, one of three sub-tracts that compose the Delamerian tract, contains four porphyry copper prospects. The Adelaide sub-tract is estimated to contain 2.5±2.2 undiscovered deposits in an area of about 50,700 square kilometers. The Macquarie permissive tract comprises volcanic, volcaniclastic, and minor exposed intrusive igneous rocks of the Macquarie Arc. The nine known deposits in this tract are now estimated to contain a total of about 13.5 million metric tons of copper and 1,700 metric tons of gold. This tract is estimated to contain 6.9±3.5 undiscovered deposits for a total of about 16 deposits in an area of about 41,500 square kilometers. The Yeoval permissive tract includes subequal areas of permissive volcanic and intrusive rocks of Silurian to Devonian age exposed in and around the Cowra-Buchan Rift System, which overlaps the previously accreted Macquarie Arc. The Yeoval tract contains one porphyry copper deposit and several porphyry copper prospects. This tract is estimated to contain 1.3±0.75 undiscovered porphyry copper deposits, for a total of about 2 expected deposits in an area of about 53,200 square kilometers. The East Tasmanide permissive tract includes a semi-continuous belt of plutonic and subordinate volcanic rocks along the eastern margins of Queensland and northeastern New South Wales. The East Tasmanide tract contains 14 known porphyry copper deposits and many porphyry copper prospects, which are all in the Central sub-tract. This sub-tract is expected to contain 4.8±3.3 undiscovered porphyry copper deposits, for a total of about 19 deposits in an area of about 291,000 square kilometers. This assessment estimates that 15 undiscovered deposits contain an arithmetic mean of ~21 million metric tons or more of copper in four tracts, in addition to the 24 known porphyry copper deposits that contain identified resources of ~16 million metric tons of copper. In addition to copper, the mean expected amount of undiscovered byproduct gold predicted by the simulation is ~1,500 metric tons. The probability associated with these arithmetic means is on the order of 30 percent. Median expected amounts of metals predicted by the simulations may be ~50 percent lower than mean estimates.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2014

Porphyry copper assessment of East and Southeast Asia: Philippines, Taiwan (Republic of China), Republic of Korea (South Korea), and Japan

The U.S. Geological Survey collaborated with member countries of the Coordinating Committee for Geoscience Programmes in East and Southeast Asia (CCOP) on an assessment of the porphyry copper resources of East and Southeast Asia as part of a global mineral resource assessment. The assessment covers the Philippines in Southeast Asia, and the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Taiwan (Province of China), and Japan in East Asia. The Philippines host world class porphyry copper deposits, such as the Tampakan and Atlas deposits. No porphyry copper deposits have been discovered in the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Taiwan (Province of China), or Japan. Thirteen geographic areas were delineated as tracts that are permissive for porphyry copper deposits in the assessed area. Individual tracts range from about 3,000 to 100,000 square kilometers in area. Permissive tracts are delineated on the basis of mapped distributions of igneous rocks of specific age ranges that define subduction-related magmatic arcs or magmatic belts that might contain porphyry copper deposits. Most of these magmatic arcs are subduction related, although some porphyry deposits and prospects are present in back-arc or poorly understood tectonic settings. Maps at various scales were used in the compilation; however, the final tract boundaries are intended for use at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Numbers of undiscovered deposits were estimated at different levels of confidence for 10 permissive tracts in the Philippines including one area that extends to eastern Taiwan (Republic of China); permissive tracts in South Korea and Japan are discussed qualitatively. Estimates of numbers of undiscovered deposits were combined with grade and tonnage models using Monte Carlo simulation to estimate amounts of undiscovered resources. Grades and tonnages of known porphyry copper deposits in the study area were compared with global grade and tonnage models to determine the appropriate model for simulation of undiscovered resources. Most of the known deposits are best described as copper-gold subtypes of porphyry copper deposits. For some permissive tracts, a general porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum model was used. Thirty-eight porphyry copper deposits are known in the Philippines; the mean number of undiscovered deposits was estimated to be 28. Mean (arithmetic) resources that could be associated with the undiscovered deposits are 90 million metric tons of copper and 5,800 metric tons of gold, as well as byproduct molybdenum and silver. Additional resources that could be discovered in extensions to known deposits were not evaluated. Assessment results, presented in tables and graphs, indicate expected amounts of total contained metal and mineralized rock in undiscovered deposits at different quantile levels, as well as the arithmetic mean for each tract. The Philippines have a long history of porphyry exploration cycles and mine development, interrupted at times by political and social unrest, environmental concerns, and natural disasters. Changes in mining laws within the region and the recent high price of gold on the world market have prompted renewed interest in porphyry copper deposits in the region. South Korea and Japan have been thoroughly explored for many types of mineral deposits. Available data suggest that the permissive rocks in South Korea typically are too deeply eroded to preserve porphyry copper deposits. Porphyry copper systems may be present in Japan, but are likely to lie at depths greater than the 1 kilometer from the surface protocol adopted for this study. Descriptions of the geologic basis for delineating each tract, the data used, the geologic criteria and rationale for the assessment, and results of the assessment are included in appendixes along with the description of a geographic information system (GIS) that includes tract boundaries, known porphyry copper deposits and significant prospects, and assessment results.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2011

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 26-29, 2011

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories and are developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span the entire geologic time frame. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, and post-depositional tectonic events that form carbonate rock aquifers are varied and complex, involving both biological and physical processes that can influence the development of permeability. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place result in the unique dual or triple porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrologic systems often present challenges to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport. The concept for developing a Karst Interest Group evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division. As a result, the Karst Interest Group was formed in 2000. The Karst Interest Group is a loose-knit grass-roots organization of USGS employees devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst hydrology studies. The mission of the Karst Interest Group is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among USGS scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the Karst Interest Group encourages cooperative studies between the different disciplines of the USGS and other Federal agencies, and university researchers or research institutes. This fifth workshop is a joint workshop of the USGS Karst Interest Group and University of Arkansas HydroDays workshop, sponsored by the USGS, the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Additional sponsors are: the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and Beaver Water District, northwest Arkansas. The majority of funding for the proceedings preparation and workshop was provided by the USGS Groundwater Resources Program, National Cooperative Mapping Program, and the Regional Executives of the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, South Central and Rocky Mountain Areas. The University of Arkansas provided the rooms and facilities for the technical and poster presentations of the workshop, vans for the field trips, and sponsored the HydroDays banquet at the Savoy Experimental Watershed on Wednesday after the technical sessions.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2022

The Seamless Integrated Geologic Mapping (SIGMa) extension to the Geologic Map Schema (GeMS)

Geologic maps are the fundamental building blocks of surface and subsurface three-dimensional geologic framework models of the Earth’s crust. However, as the production and availability of geologic map databases continues to increase, inconsistent data models and the lack of synthesized, national geologic map data at scales appropriate for informed decision making negatively affect the functional integration of geologic map data with other national datasets. The Geologic Map Schema (GeMS) is the publication and archive database standard for geologic map data funded by the U.S. Geological Survey National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, and standardizes the organization and content of a single map database. However, synthesizing multiple databases into a seamless geologic map database creates a different set of challenges and database needs than GeMS was designed to accommodate. The Seamless Integrated Geologic Mapping (SIGMa) extension is designed to expand the capabilities of GeMS by enabling integration of map-based geoscience data. In particular, the SIGMa extension enables capturing a diverse and ever-changing set of map units, produced by many contributors operating independently, and by incremental and noncontiguous assembly and publication. Feature-level metadata fields allow data sources and digital compilation methods to be attributed separately and a relational structure is designed to support the link between data sources and features attributed with multiple data sources. Instead of paragraph-style map-unit descriptions that can be highly inconsistent, SIGMa parses fundamental map-unit attributes, including material, genetic process, and age, into thematically specific fields. The SIGMa extension uses a hierarchical map-unit organization to facilitate a dynamic and evolving, formation-level stratigraphic framework. The hierarchy is developed around geologic provinces that represent temporally restricted geologic events, processes, and settings. Geologic provinces can include magmatic events, depositional settings associated with tectonic processes or stable continental margins, and processes that are actively shaping the modern landscape. A geologic province hierarchy places map units into a geologic context at subregional to continental scales and provides the flexibility to support incremental assembly of the stratigraphy.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2006

FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)

PLEASE NOTE: This now-approved 'FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)' officially supercedes its earlier (2000) Public Review Draft version (see 'Earlier Versions of the Standard' below). In August 2006, the Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization was officially endorsed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as the national standard for the digital cartographic representation of geologic map features (FGDC Document Number FGDC-STD-013-2006). Presented herein is the PostScript Implementation of the standard, which will enable users to directly apply the symbols in the standard to geologic maps and illustrations prepared in desktop illustration and (or) publishing software. The FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization contains descriptions, examples, cartographic specifications, and notes on usage for a wide variety of symbols that may be used on typical, general-purpose geologic maps and related products such as cross sections. The standard also can be used for different kinds of special-purpose or derivative map products and databases that may be focused on a specific geoscience topic (for example, slope stability) or class of features (for example, a fault map). The standard is scale-independent, meaning that the symbols are appropriate for use with geologic mapping compiled or published at any scale. It will be useful to anyone who either produces or uses geologic map information, whether in analog or digital form. Please be aware that this standard is not intended to be used inflexibly or in a manner that will limit one's ability to communicate the observations and interpretations gained from geologic mapping. In certain situations, a symbol or its usage might need to be modified in order to better represent a particular feature on a geologic map or cross section. This standard allows the use of any symbol that doesn't conflict with others in the standard, provided that it is clearly explained on the map and in the database. In addition, modifying the size, color, and (or) lineweight of an existing symbol to suit the needs of a particular map or output device also is permitted, provided that the modified symbol's appearance is not too similar to another symbol on the map. Be aware, however, that reducing lineweights below .125 mm (.005 inch) may cause symbols to plot incorrectly if output at higher resolutions (1800 dpi or higher). For guidelines on symbol usage, as well as on color design and map labeling, please refer to the standard's introductory text. Also found there are informational sections covering concepts of geologic mapping and some definitions of geologic map features, as well as sections on the newly defined concepts and terminology for the scientific confidence and locational accuracy of geologic map features. More information on both the past development and the future maintenance of the FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization can be found at the FGDC Geologic Data Subcommittee website (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/). Earlier Versions of the Standard

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS1996

Joint US Geological Survey, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission workshop on research related to low-level radioactive waste disposal, May 4-6, 1993, National Center, Reston, Virginia; Proceedings

This report contains papers presented at the "Joint U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Technical Workshop on Research Related to Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Disposal" that was held at the USGS National Center Auditorium, Reston, Virginia, May 4-6, 1993. The objective of the workshop was to provide a forum for exchange of information, ideas, and technology in the geosciences dealing with LLW disposal. This workshop was the first joint activity under the Memorandum of Understanding between the USGS and NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research signed in April 1992. Participants included invited speakers from the USGS, NRC technical contractors (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories and universities) and NRC staff for presentation of research study results related to LLW disposal. Also in attendance were scientists from the DOE, DOE National Laboratories, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State developmental and regulatory agencies involved in LLW disposal facility siting and licensing, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), private industry, Agricultural Research Service, universities, USGS and NRC.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2025

MIMAR-Net: Multiscale Inception-based Manhattan Attention Residual Network and its application to underwater image super-resolution

In recent years, Single-Image Super-Resolution (SISR) has gained significant attention in the geoscience and remote sensing community for its potential to improve the resolution of low-quality underwater imagery. This paper introduces MIMAR-Net ( M ultiscale I nception-based M anhattan A ttention R esidual Network), a new deep learning architecture designed to increase the spatial resolution of input color images. MIMAR-Net integrates a multiscale inception module, cascaded residue learning, and advanced attention mechanisms, such as the MaSA layer, to capture both local and global contextual information effectively. By utilizing multiscale processing and advanced attention strategies, MIMAR-Net allows us to handle the complexities of underwater environments with precision and robustness. We evaluate the model on three popular underwater image datasets, namely UFO-120, USR-248, and EUVP, and perform extensive comparisons against state-of-the-art methods. Experimental results demonstrate that MIMAR-Net consistently outperforms existing approaches, achieving superior qualitative and quantitative improvements in image quality, making it a reliable solution for underwater image enhancement in various challenging scenarios.

Electronics↗

USGS2006

Health benefits of geologic materials and geologic processes

The reemerging field of Medical Geology is concerned with the impacts of geologic materials and geologic processes on animal and human health. Most medical geology research has been focused on health problems caused by excess or deficiency of trace elements, exposure to ambient dust, and on other geologically related health problems or health problems for which geoscience tools, techniques, or databases could be applied. Little, if any, attention has been focused on the beneficial health effects of rocks, minerals, and geologic processes. These beneficial effects may have been recognized as long as two million years ago and include emotional, mental, and physical health benefits. Some of the earliest known medicines were derived from rocks and minerals. For thousands of years various clays have been used as an antidote for poisons. “Terra sigillata,” still in use today, may have been the first patented medicine. Many trace elements, rocks, and minerals are used today in a wide variety of pharmaceuticals and health care products. There is also a segment of society that believes in the curative and preventative properties of crystals (talismans and amulets). Metals and trace elements are being used in some of today’s most sophisticated medical applications. Other recent examples of beneficial effects of geologic materials and processes include epidemiological studies in Japan that have identified a wide range of health problems (such as muscle and joint pain, hemorrhoids, burns, gout, etc.) that may be treated by one or more of nine chemically distinct types of hot springs, and a study in China indicating that residential coal combustion may be mobilizing sufficient iodine to prevent iodine deficiency disease.

International Journal of Environmental Research an↗