USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Map Series”

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

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

At least 793 records · Page 44Linked to original sources
USGS2008

Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, West-Central Florida, September 2007

The Floridan aquifer system consists of the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers separated by the middle confining unit. The middle confining unit and the Lower Floridan aquifer in west-central Florida generally contain highly mineralized water. The water-bearing units containing fresh water are herein referred to as the Upper Floridan aquifer. The Upper Floridan aquifer is the principal source of water in the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is used for major public supply, domestic use, irrigation, and brackish water desalination in coastal communities (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2000). This map report shows the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer measured in September 2007. The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface connecting points of equal altitude to which water will rise in tightly-cased wells that tap a confined aquifer system (Lohman, 1979). This map represents water-level conditions near the end of the wet season, when ground-water levels usually are at an annual high and withdrawals for agricultural use typically are low. The cumulative average rainfall of 39.50 inches for west-central Florida (from October 2006 through September 2007) was 13.42 inches below the historical cumulative average of 52.92 inches (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2007). Historical cumulative averages are calculated from regional rainfall summary reports (1915 to most recent complete calendar year) and are updated monthly by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is part of a semi-annual series of Upper Floridan aquifer potentiometric-surface map reports for west-central Florida. Potentiometric-surface maps have been prepared for January 1964, May 1969, May 1971, May 1973, May 1974, and for each May and September since 1975. Water-level data are collected in May and September each year to show the approximate annual low and high water-level conditions, respectively. Most of the water-level data for this map were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during the period September 17-21, 2007. Supplemental water-level data were collected by other agencies and companies. A corresponding potentiometric-surface map was prepared for areas east and north of the Southwest Florida Water Management District boundary by the U.S. Geological Survey office in Orlando, Florida (Kinnaman and Dixon, 2008). Most water-level measurements were made during a 5-day period; therefore, measurements do not represent a 'snapshot' of conditions at a specific time, nor do they necessarily coincide with the seasonal high water-level condition.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, West-Central Florida, May 2008

The Floridan aquifer system consists of the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers separated by the middle confining unit. The middle confining unit and the Lower Floridan aquifer in west-central Florida generally contain highly mineralized water. The water-bearing units containing fresh water are herein referred to as the Upper Floridan aquifer. The Upper Floridan aquifer is the principal source of water in the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is used for major public supply, domestic use, irrigation, and brackish water desalination in coastal communities (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2000). This map report shows the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer measured in May 2008. The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface connecting points of equal altitude to which water will rise in tightly-cased wells that tap a confined aquifer system (Lohman, 1979). This map represents water-level conditions near the end of the dry season, when ground-water levels usually are at an annual low and withdrawals for agricultural use typically are high. The cumulative average rainfall of 46.95 inches for west-central Florida (from June 2007 through May 2008) was 5.83 inches below the historical cumulative average of 52.78 inches (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2008). Historical cumulative averages are calculated from regional rainfall summary reports (1915 to most recent complete calendar year) and are updated monthly by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is part of a semi-annual series of Upper Floridan aquifer potentiometric-surface map reports for west-central Florida. Potentiometric-surface maps have been prepared for January 1964, May 1969, May 1971, May 1973, May 1974, and for each May and September since 1975. Water-level data are collected in May and September each year to show the approximate annual low and high water-level conditions, respectively. Most of the water-level data for this map were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during the period May 19-23, 2008. Supplemental water-level data were collected by other agencies and companies. A corresponding potentiometric-surface map was prepared for areas east and north of the Southwest Florida Water Management District boundary by the U.S. Geological Survey office in Orlando, Florida (Kinnaman and Dixon, 2008). Most water-level measurements were made during a 5-day period; therefore, measurements do not represent a 'snapshot' of conditions at a specific time, nor do they necessarily coincide with the seasonal low water-level condition.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2009

Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, West-Central Florida, September 2008

The Floridan aquifer system consists of the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers separated by the middle confining unit. The middle confining unit and the Lower Floridan aquifer in west-central Florida generally contain highly mineralized water. The water-bearing units containing fresh water are herein referred to as the Upper Floridan aquifer. The Upper Floridan aquifer is the principal source of water in the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is used for major public supply, domestic use, irrigation, and brackish water desalination in coastal communities (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2000). This map report shows the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer measured in September 2008. The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface connecting points of equal altitude to which water will rise in tightly-cased wells that tap a confined aquifer system (Lohman, 1979). This map represents water-level conditions near the end of the wet season, when ground-water levels usually are at an annual high and withdrawals for agricultural use typically are low. The cumulative average rainfall of 50.63 inches for west-central Florida (from October 2007 through September 2008) was 2.26 inches below the historical cumulative average of 52.89 inches (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2008). Historical cumulative averages are calculated from regional rainfall summary reports (1915 to most recent complete calendar year) and are updated monthly by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is part of a semi-annual series of Upper Floridan aquifer potentiometric-surface map reports for west-central Florida. Potentiometric-surface maps have been prepared for January 1964, May 1969, May 1971, May 1973, May 1974, and for each May and September since 1975. Water-level data are collected in May and September each year to show the approximate annual low and high water-level conditions, respectively. Most of the water-level data for this map were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during the period September 15-19, 2008. Supplemental water-level data were collected by other agencies and companies. A corresponding potentiometric-surface map was prepared for areas east and north of the Southwest Florida Water Management District boundary by the U.S. Geological Survey office in Orlando, Florida (Kinnaman and Dixon, 2009). Most water-level measurements were made during a 5-day period; therefore, measurements do not represent a 'snapshot' of conditions at a specific time, nor do they necessarily coincide with the seasonal high water-level condition.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2009

Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, West-Central Florida, May 2009

The Floridan aquifer system consists of the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers separated by the middle confining unit. The middle confining unit and the Lower Floridan aquifer in west-central Florida generally contain highly mineralized water. The water-bearing units containing fresh water are herein referred to as the Upper Floridan aquifer. The Upper Floridan aquifer is the principal source of water in the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is used for major public supply, domestic use, irrigation, and brackish water desalination in coastal communities (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2000). This map report shows the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer measured in May 2009. The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface connecting points of equal altitude to which water will rise in tightly-cased wells that tap a confined aquifer system (Lohman, 1979). This map represents water-level conditions near the end of the dry season, when ground-water levels usually are at an annual low and withdrawals for agricultural use typically are high. The cumulative average rainfall of 48.53 inches for west-central Florida (from June 2008 through May 2009) was 4.12 inches below the historical cumulative average of 52.65 inches (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2009). Historical cumulative averages are calculated from regional rainfall summary reports (1915 to most recent complete calendar year) and are updated monthly by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is part of a semi-annual series of Upper Floridan aquifer potentiometric-surface map reports for west-central Florida. Potentiometric-surface maps have been prepared for January 1964, May 1969, May 1971, May 1973, May 1974, and for each May and September since 1975. Water-level data are collected in May and September each year to show the approximate annual low and high water-level conditions, respectively. Most of the water-level data for this map were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during the period May 18-22, 2009. Supplemental water-level data were collected by other agencies and companies. A corresponding potentiometric-surface map was prepared for areas east and north of the Southwest Florida Water Management District boundary by the U.S. Geological Survey office in Orlando, Florida (Kinnaman and Dixon, 2009). Most water-level measurements were made during a 5-day period; therefore, measurements do not represent a 'snapshot' of conditions at a specific time, nor do they necessarily coincide with the seasonal low water-level condition. The potentiometric contours are generalized to synoptically portray the head in a dynamic hydrologic system, taking due account of the variations in hydrogeologic conditions, such as differing depths of wells, nonsimultaneous measurements of water levels, variable effects of pumping, and changing climatic influence. The potentiometric contours may not conform exactly with the individual measurements of water levels.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGSDate not supplied

Ocoee series of the southern Appalachians

The Ocoee series is divided into four major units present from northern North Carolina to western Georgia and a fifth, younger, formation present only in southern North Carolina and Georgia. The units recognize dare as follows: The Ocoee series is a broad synclinal belt of resistant Great Smoky quartzite, which forms most of the Great Smoky Mountains and the Bald Mountains, with Nantahala slate and in places the Big Butt quartzite enclosed in synclines; the Hurricane graywacke is on the flanks of the main syncline. In the deeper Murphy syncline the Big Butt quartzite is overlain by the Valleytown formation. The Ocoee series is thrust northwestward on the Great Smoky overthrust over Paleozoic rocks of the Great Valley, and in Tennessee overrides unmetamorphosed sandstone, shale, limestone, and limestone conglomerate which previously were mapped as Wilhite slate and were included in the Ocoee series. These rocks in a few places contain Middle Ordovician fossils and are a newly recognized part of a clastic shore facies equivalent to an expanded Tellico sandstone of undetermined stratigraphic range. This part of the Ordovician shore facies is in the Pulaski block in Tennessee and is exposed also in windows in the Great Smoky overthrust block in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. The Ocoee series does not resemble the Lower Cambrian Chilhowee group, which it overrides, nor any other Lower Cambrian facies. Lower Cambrian quartzites overlie with erosional unconformity the Catoctin basalt, Swift Run tuff, and Mt. Rogers volcanic series, proving that these volcanic rocks are late pre-Cambrian. The Ocoee series resembles the Lynchburg gneiss, which is equivalent to the late pre-Cambrian Swift Run tuff. The Ocoee series is stratigraphically overlain by the Lower Cambrian Unicoi formation and is late pre-Cambrian. © 1949, The Geological Society of America, Inc.

North Carolina, Georgia↗
USGS2010

Recently active traces of the Bartlett Springs Fault, California: A digital database

The purpose of this map is to show the location of and evidence for recent movement on active fault traces within the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone, California. The location and recency of the mapped traces is primarily based on geomorphic expression of the fault as interpreted from large-scale aerial photography. In a few places, evidence of fault creep and offset Holocene strata in trenches and natural exposures have confirmed the activity of some of these traces. This publication is formatted both as a digital database for use within a geographic information system (GIS) and for broader public access as map images that may be browsed on-line or download a summary map. The report text describes the types of scientific observations used to make the map, gives references pertaining to the fault and the evidence of faulting, and provides guidance for use of and limitations of the map.

California↗
USGS2012

Recently Active Traces of the Berryessa Fault, California: A Digital Database

The purpose of this map is to show the location of and evidence for recent movement on active fault traces within the Berryessa section and parts of adjacent sections of the Green Valley Fault Zone, California. The location and recency of the mapped traces is primarily based on geomorphic expression of the fault as interpreted from large-scale 2010 aerial photography and from 2007 and 2011 0.5 and 1.0 meter bare-earth LiDAR imagery (that is, high-resolution topographic data). In a few places, evidence of fault creep and offset Holocene strata in trenches and natural exposures have confirmed the activity of some of these traces. This publication is formatted both as a digital database for use within a geographic information system (GIS) and for broader public access as map images that may be browsed on-line or download a summary map . The report text describes the types of scientific observations used to make the map, gives references pertaining to the fault and the evidence of faulting, and provides guidance for use of and limitations of the map.

California↗
USGS2006

Potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer, west-central Florida, May 2005

The Floridan aquifer system consists of the Upper and Lower Floridan aquifers separated by the middle confining unit. The middle confining unit and the Lower Floridan aquifer in west-central Florida generally contain highly mineralized water. The water-bearing units containing freshwater are herein referred to as the Upper Floridan aquifer. The Upper Floridan aquifer is a highly productive aquifer and supplies more than 10 times the amount of water pumped from either the surficial aquifer system or the intermediate aquifer system in most of the study area (Duerr and others, 1988). This map report shows the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer measured in May 2005. The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface connecting points of equal altitude to which water will rise in a tightly cased well that taps a confined aquifer system (Lohman, 1979). This map represents water-level conditions near the end of the dry season, when ground-water levels usually are at an annual low and withdrawals for agricultural use typically are high. The cumulative average rainfall of 67.27 inches for west-central Florida (from June 2004 through May 2005) was 14.20 inches above the historical cumulative average of 53.07 inches (Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), 2005). The above average precipitation is attributed to the active hurrican season for Florida in 2004. Historical cumulative averages are calculated from regional rainfall summary reports (1915 to the most recent completed calendar year) and are updated monthly by the SWFWMD. This report, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the SWFWMD, is part of a semiannual series of Upper Floridan aquifer potentiometric-surface map reports for west-central Florida. Potentiometric-surface maps have been prepared for January 1964, May 1969, May 1971, May 1973, May 1974, and for each May and September since 1975. Water-level data are collected in May and September each year to show the approximate annual low and high water-level conditions, respectively. Most of the water-level data for this map were collected by the USGS during May 23-27, 2005. Supplemental water-level data were collected by other agencies and companies. A corresponding potentiometric-surface map was prepared for areas east and north of the SWFWMD boundary by the USGS office in Altamonte Springs, Florida (Kinnaman, 2006). Most water-level measurements were made during a 5-day period; therefore, measurements do not represent a 'snapshot' of conditions at a specific time, nor do they necessarily coincide with the seasonal low water-level condition. Water levels in about 19 percent of the wells measured in May 2005 were lower than the May 2004 water levels (Blanchard and others, 2004). Data from 409 wells indicate that the May 2005 water levels ranged from about 5 feet below to about 18 feet above the May 2004 water levels (fig. 1). The largest water-level declines occurred in southwestern Hernando County, northeastern Hillsborough County, and parts of Hillsborough, Sumter, and Sarasota Counties. The largest water-level rises occurred in southeastern Hillsborough County, eastern Manatee County, and western Hardee County (fig. 1). Water levels in about 95 percent of the wells measured in May 2005 were lower than the September 2004 water levels (Blanchard and Seidenfeld, 2005). Data from 405 wells indicate that the May 2005 water levels ranged from about 22 feet below to 14 feet above the September 2004 water levels. The largest water-level decline was in east-central Manatee County and the largest water-level rise was in central Sarasota County.

Florida↗
USGS1990

Major geohydrologic units in and adjacent to the Ozark Plateaus province, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma

An investigation of the geohydrologic system in the Ozark Plateaus province (index map and Fenneman, 1938) has been made as part of the Central Midwest Regional Aquifer System Analysis (Jorgensen and Signor, 1981), a major study of the regional aquifer system in parts of 10 States. The study is one of several by the U.S. Geological Survey that are designed to increase knowledge of the flow regime and geohydrologic properties of regional aquifer systems in the United States. Because a large quantity of fresh ground water is available in aquifers underlying the Ozark Plateaus province, a subregional project has been established to study the geohydrologic units of this area in more detail than is practical in the regional study. The stratigraphic and geologic relationships among the primary geohydrologic units in and adjacent to the Ozark Plateaus is depicted in this atlas (Chapter A). This is the first of a series of chapters (A-H) that includes maps of the altitude of the top, thickness, potentiometric surface, and percentage-of-shale content of individual geohydrologic units.

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma↗
USGS2010

Metallogenesis and Tectonics of Northeast Asia

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

Introduction, Chapter 1 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Methodology of a combined regional metallogenic and tectonic analysis for northeast Asia, Chapter 2 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Mineral-deposit models for northeast Asia, Chapter 3 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Archean through Mesoproterozoic metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 4 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Neoproterozoic through Silurian metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 5 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Devonian through early Carboniferous (Mississippian) metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 6 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Late Carboniferous through early Jurassic metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 7 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Middle Jurassic through Quaternary metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 8 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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↗