USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Synthesis and Assessment Product”

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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

Upper Rio Grande Basin water-resource status and trends: Focus area study review and synthesis

The Upper Rio Grande Basin (URGB) is a critical international water resource under pressure from a myriad of climatic, ecological, infrastructural, water-use, and legal constraints. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the spatial distribution and temporal trends of selected water-budget components (snow processes, evapotranspiration (ET), streamflow processes, and groundwater storage) using integrated analyses, such as watershed modeling and water availability and use data in the URGB over the past three decades. A spatially distributed snow evolution modeling system simulated snowpack processes over 34 years (1984–2017). It highlighted snow water equivalent declines from -35 to -77 mm/decade with widespread variability across elevation zones and land cover types. Gridded actual ET data from the SSEBop model were developed and tested for the URGB and demonstrated that all land-cover types had significant decreasing trends (1986-2015) ranging from -14 to -80 mm/decade. Conductivity-mass-balance (CMB) hydrograph separation results found that baseflow forms a large component of total streamflow, ranging from 29 to 69% (49% average) of total streamflow at 17 URGB sites upstream of Albuquerque, NM. Three of 4 graphical hydrograph separation methods in the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Toolbox were found to be inappropriate for estimating baseflow in the URGB; the most promising method, baseflow index (BFI) Standard, was optimized using CMB data and tested at three URGB sites, with resulting overestimation of 0 to 47%. Simulated changes in groundwater storage were extracted from historical and recent groundwater-flow models of select alluvial basins (San Luis, Española, Middle Rio Grande, and Tularosa-Hueco). In general, decreases in groundwater storage were observed from 1903 to 2013 except for the San Luis alluvial basin (Colorado), where periods of recovery are observed. The PRMS hydrologic model was successfully calibrated for 9 near-native subbasins (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency 0.47 to 0.85) and parameters translated to the remaining subbasins; compared to simulated near-native flows (with minimal influence of reservoirs or diversions), observed Rio Grande streamgage flows demonstrated reductions of 40% or more for New Mexico and Texas areas of the basin. Significant decreasing trends (1980-2015) in precipitation, snowmelt rate, streamflow, and baseflow were observed at many of the 12 streamgage basins studied, which suggests that the decreasing trends for actual ET may be related to overall decreasing water availability in the basin, with negative implications for agricultural production and groundwater abstraction. Water security concerns arise from our findings of higher fraction precipitation as rain, slower snowmelt rates leading to decreasing streamflow production, and an increasing fraction of baseflow, all of which will affect the timing and magnitude of water available for human needs in the basin.

Upper Rio Grande Basin↗

Coastal barrier resilience and resistance: Analysis and metrics for characterizing coastal state

Barrier islands are shaped by a variety of short- and long-term environmental processes such as storms and relative sea-level rise. These islands, found along the estuarine-marine interface, provide ecosystem services including storm surge and wave attenuation, erosion protection to inland marshes, habitat for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Natural resource managers require actionable information on how barrier island resilience and resistance changes over time to understand how an island’s current state relates to past conditions and to inform restoration prioritization and implementation. The U.S. Geological Survey and The Water Institute collaborated on a study to develop indicators of resilience and resistance for barrier islands in Louisiana. Here, resilience captures island persistence on yearly to decadal time scales, and resistance captures persistence on event time scales of days to weeks. The indicators fall in two categories: Tier 1 Screening Metrics, that can be readily calculated from available data, are easily interpretable as an evaluation of barrier condition, and provide a high-level snapshot of overall barrier resilience and resistance; and Tier 2 Analysis Metrics, which are detailed metrics that required specialized analysis and interpretation and are more applicable to answering specific questions managers may have about barrier state. The research team derived Tier 1 resilience indicators from subaerial land and vegetation cover calculated from publicly available maps and products based on satellite imagery. By benchmarking the total land and vegetation extent against their respective historical maxima, this metric provides a snapshot of an island’s current state in the context of its long-term trajectory. The research team developed Tier 1 resistance indicators based on subaerial island configuration and water level recurrence as a proxy for evaluating island resistance to storms, which are the primary driver of short-term change. These Tier 1 metrics can be analyzed over time to provide a high-level assessment of how an island’s resistance decreases because of elevation loss or sea-level rise or increases due to restoration or natural recovery. The research team developed Tier 2 resilience and resistance indicators and associated analyses to provide detailed information for specific time periods or applications (e.g., wildlife management). These metrics include habitat coverage from high-resolution maps, which show composition changes over time to capture the evolving resilience of specific habitat types; high tide flooding analysis, which evaluate island area relative to specified flooding thresholds to characterize resistance in the short-term or, if analyzed over time, indicate changes in resilience; and hypsometric curve analysis, which allows managers to evaluate island area changes above their own elevation benchmarks of interest and similarly characterize resistance in the short-term or indicate changes in resilience if assessed over time. The research team calculated Tier 1 metrics of the barrier islands and headlands along the coast of Louisiana for the period of 1984 through 2021 and Tier 2 metrics for select times during that period depending on data available and quality. The results were captured in a report card for each barrier, which also includes an overview of the metrics and their interpretation; a restoration and storm history; and Tier 1 and Tier 2 metric analysis, including benchmarking against coastwide and regional values as well as to an island’s pre-restoration trajectory. These report cards provide a readily digestible synthesis of barrier condition and trajectory that coastal managers can use to support restoration prioritization and other decisions.

Louisiana↗

Irrigation-induced contamination of water, sediment, and biota in the western United States-synthesis of data from the National Irrigation Water Quality Program

In October 1985 the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Irrigation Water Quality Program (NIWQP), began a series of field investigations at 26 areas in the Western United States to determine whether irrigation drainage has had harmful effects on fish, wildlife, and humans or has reduced beneficial uses of water. In 1992 NIWQP initiated the Data Synthesis Project to evaluate data collected during the field investigations. Geologic, climatologic, and hydrologic data were evaluated and water, sediment, and biota from the 26 areas were analyzed to identify commonalities and dominant factors that result in irrigation-induced contamination of water and biota. Data collected for the 26 area investigations have been compiled and merged into a common data base. The structure of the data base is designed to enable assessment of relations between contaminant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota. The data base is available to the scientific community through the World Wide Web at URL http://www.usbr.gov/niwqp . Analysis of the data base for the Data Synthesis included use of summary statistics, factor analysis, and logistic regression. A Geographic Information System was used to store and analyze spatially oriented digital data such as land use, geology and evaporation rates. In the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) study areas, samples of water, bottom sediment, and biota were collected for trace-element and pesticide analysis. Contaminants most commonly associated with irrigation drainage were identified by comparing concentrations in water with established criteria. For surface water, the criteria used were typically chronic criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. Because ground water can discharge to the surface where wildlife can be exposed to it, the criteria used for ground water were both the maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) for drinking water and the chronic criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. Data collected by the NIWQP studies indicated that, in surface water, filtered and unfiltered samples had nearly the same concentrations of arsenic, boron, molybdenum, and selenium for concentrations greater than about 10 micrograms per liter. Therefore, in this concentration range, filtered concentrations can be directly compared to biological-effect levels developed for unfiltered samples. In the range of 1 to 10 micrograms per liter there may be a tendency for unfiltered arsenic concentrations to be greater than filtered concentrations. For selenium, however, the data suggest differences from equality in that range result from analytical imprecision and not a general tendency for unfiltered concentrations to be greater than filtered concentrations. This relation may not be true in lentic, nutrient-rich waters because in such settings algae can bioaccumulate large amounts of selenium and other trace elements. Selenium was the trace element in surface water that most commonly exceeded chronic criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life; more than 40 percent of the selenium concentrations in surface-water samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) aquatic-life chronic criterion (5 micrograms per liter). In 12 of the 26 areas at least 25 percent of the surface water-samples had selenium concentrations that either equaled or exceeded the chronic criterion (5 micrograms per liter). More than 28 percent of boron concentrations and almost 17 percent of the molybdenum concentrations exceeded the aquatic life criteria established by the State of California (550 and 19 micrograms per liter, respectively). In ground water, more than 22 percent of the arsenic concentrations and more than 35 percent of the selenium concentrations exceeded the MCL (10 and 50 micrograms per liter, respectively). Few samples of uranium in surface water exceeded a criterion for the protection of aquatic life (300 micrograms per liter), but 44 percent of the uranium concentrations in ground water exceeded the MCL (30 micrograms per liter). Molybdenum, selenium and uranium were the trace elements most commonly found in bottom-sediment samples that exceeded the upper limit of the 95th percentile expected range in soils of the Western United States. Selenium is the only trace element for which ecological sediment guidelines are used in this report. Selenium concentrations commonly exceeded the ecological sediment guideline of two micrograms per gram. DDT and its degradation products DDD and DDE were the most common pesticide residues found in surface water at concentrations exceeding criteria. However, almost all the samples exceeding the criteria were from a single study area, the Owyhee-Vale Reclamation Project areas in Oregon and Idaho. The organochlorine pesticide chlordane was detected in 30 percent of the bottom-sediment samples, and undegraded DDT was detected in 21 percent. DDT or its degradation products were detected in all 21 study areas where bottom-sediment samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides. A principal-components analysis indicated that elevated selenium concentrations in surface water are not associated with elevated boron, molybdenum, or arsenic concentrations. The occurrence of selenium is associated with sulfate and uranium. The association of boron and molybdenum with chloride suggests that evaporative processes control their concentrations. Arsenic is not associated with any other measured trace element and is associated negatively with selenium. This report focuses on selenium because it was the trace element most frequently found at concentrations exceeding criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Selenium concentrations in water are dynamic, and, at a given site, the selenium concentration can change by an order of magnitude during a year and from one year to another. In some areas, selenium contamination may not occur during normal or wet periods. However, during a drought, reduced water deliveries may result in selenium contamination by evaporative concentration. Marine sedimentary rocks, especially those of Late Cretaceous age, are likely to be seleniferous. Irrigation of soils derived from them can contribute large amounts of selenium to drainwater; shallow wells in and near irrigated areas contained hundreds to thousands of micrograms per liter of selenium. The median selenium concentration in surface-water samples from NIWQP sites associated with Upper Cretaceous marine sedimentary rocks is 7 micrograms per liter (range less than 1 to 8,300 micrograms per liter) and from sites not associated with such rocks is 0.4 micrograms per liter (range less than 1 to 390 micrograms per liter). Irrigation-induced selenium contamination has been observed only in arid or semiarid areas. In those NIWQP study areas having local geologic sources of selenium, typically more than 25 percent of the surface-water samples exceed the chronic criterion for selenium if the evaporation rate is 3.0 times greater than the annual precipitation. In terminal water bodies, selenium accumulates and is not flushed out. In both terminal and flow-through lakes and ponds, the median selenium concentrations in surface water for samples collected from June through August are nearly the same (1.0 and 0.8 micrograms per liter, respectively). However, the 75th-percentile selenium concentration for terminal water bodies (24 µg/L) is significantly higher than for flow-through systems (4 µg/L). Selenium concentrations in biota were compared with concentrations that have been demonstrated to have adverse effects on similar species (the effect level) or to have adverse effects on another species if consumed (the dietary effect level). Twenty-five percent of the plant samples had selenium concentrations exceeding the dietary effect level (3 micrograms per gram dry weight) whereas more than 57 percent of the invertebrate samples and 61 percent of the fish samples exceeded the dietary effect level. Of the more than 2,000 bird eggs collected, 44 percent had selenium concentrations exceeding 6 micrograms per gram, a threshold value for reduced hatchability. In 14 areas, selenium concentrations in eggs from some populations of birds exceeded 6 micrograms per gram. Selenium-caused deformities of bird embryos were found in four of the NIWQP study areas; however, most study areas were not systematically surveyed for such deformities. Eggs were sampled from 34 species of birds belonging to 10 orders. Nearly all the eggs collected come from aquatic species of birds, with American coots, mallards, and American avocets being the three species most frequently collected. Of the 34 species, at least one set of eggs from 16 species had a geometric-mean selenium concentration of at least 12.5 micrograms per gram, a high-risk threshold. All three species of grebes yielded at least one set of high risk eggs, as did four of five species of shorebirds and five of eleven species of waterfowl. Egg-set data were examined to determine if some feeding guilds are more at risk to selenium poisoning than others. Analysis of data for waterbird eggs from the study areas where the 75th percentile selenium concentration in surface water exceeded 5 µg/L suggests that herbivorous birds may bioaccumulate less selenium than insect- and fish-eating birds. For birds from these study areas, selenium concentrations for 39 percent of the egg sets from herbivorous birds fell in the normal range (less than 3 µg/g) while only 7 and 0 percent, respectively, of egg sets from insect- and fish-eating birds fall in the normal range. Although herbivorous birds may bioaccumulate less selenium, it does not appear that any waterbird feeding guilds are particularly well buffered from exposure to selenium contamination. Predictive tools were developed to aid managers in identifying specific land areas at risk for irrigation-induced selenium contamination. The tools range from identifying broad geographic regions where selenium contamination is likely, to assessing the probability that selenium concentrations in a specific stream or lake exceed the chronic criterion for selenium. A geographic information system was used to prepare a map that identifies land areas in the Western United States that are susceptible to selenium contamination if irrigated. On the basis of the 75th percentile, selenium concentration in surface water, 12 of the 26 NIWQP study areas were classified as contaminated, two as seleniferous, and 12 as uncontaminated. The map correctly identified both seleniferous areas and 10 of 12 selenium-contaminated areas as susceptible; 10 of 12 uncontaminated areas were correctly identified as not being susceptible. About 160,000 square miles are identified as being susceptible; of that area, about 4,100 square miles have been identified by satellite imagery as actively being irrigated. Principal-components analysis and pattern-recognition techniques indicate that major-ion chemistry of water samples alone can be used to identify selenium- and nonselenium-producing areas in the Western United States. Water samples composed of simple salts of sulfate typically have concentrations of selenium that exceed 3 µg/g, whereas samples composed of simple salts of chloride or carbonate typically have low selenium concentrations. Weathering of soils that contain reduced-sulfur minerals, such as pyrite, mobilizes sulfur and selenium because selenium commonly substitutes for sulfur in these minerals. In areas where the bedrock is composed of Upper Cretaceous marine sedimentary rocks, logistic regression of data from the NIWQP sites indicates that if the dissolved-solids concentration equals 1,000 milligrams per liter, the probability is about 69 percent that the selenium concentration will exceed 5 micrograms per liter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chronic criterion. In areas where the bedrock is not composed of such rocks, the probability is only about 10 percent. The avian-egg data within the biotic data base were used to make a quantitative toxicological risk assessment. Of the 23 study areas where avian eggs were sampled, 14 areas yielded at least one egg containing 6 µg/g selenium, the threshold for embryotoxicity. However, only 6 of the study areas yielded eggs containing enough selenium to expect selenium-induced teratogenesis of duck embryos. Predicted probabilities of discovering embryo teratogenesis matched field observations in 13 of the 14 study areas reporting results of embryo assessments. Bird eggs were collected from 161 individual sampling sites and at 79 of those sites selenium concentrations in one or more eggs exceeded 6 µg/g. At the 79 sites where biological effects are expected on the basis of selenium concentrations in the eggs, the median rate was 3.9 percent of the hens losing at least one egg to selenium-induced embryotoxicity. This corresponds to about 1.2 percent selenium-induced egg inviability among otherwise viable eggs. Across all NIWQP study areas, the overall rate of hens projected to lose at least one egg to selenium-induced embryotoxicity is estimated to be 1.9 percent, which corresponds to about 0.3 percent selenium-induced egg inviability among otherwise viable eggs. After accounting for increased mortality of selenium poisoned-hatchlings due to other factors such as weather and predators, it was estimated that that increases of 0.3 and 1.2 percent in inviable eggs would cause approximately a 1.4 and 5.4 percent depression in nesting success. Regional surveys of nesting success among ducks revealed that duck populations commonly exist near their demographic break-even point. The vulnerable demographic condition of North American duck populations during the mid-1960's to mid-1980's was primarily due to noncontaminant factors, such as poor-quality nesting habitat and dry climatic cycles. Under such conditions, rates of 1.4- to 5.4-percent depression in nesting success caused by exposure to selenium from irrigation projects can be crucial for avian populations already close to their demographic break-even point. Even the worst-case levels of contaminant effects, however, could be tolerated by populations of ducks existing just modestly above demographic break-even points. This suggests the biotic risk to ducks could be addressed by reducing irrigation-induced water pollution but more effectively by restoring high-quality (more predator-safe) nesting habitat. An analysis at the nesting-site level was made of the relation between selenium content of water and bird eggs. Eggs from 93 bird populations were collected from nesting sites where the water sample collected during April-July contained less than 5 µg/L selenium. The average selenium concentration in egg sets was embryotoxic in 19 of the 93 populations. Of the populations collected at sites where the selenium in the water was less than 1 microgram per liter, only four of 54 populations contained embryotoxic concentrations. Eggs from 65 populations of birds were collected from nesting sites where selenium concentrations in water samples collected during April-July equaled or exceeded 5 µg/L, and 55 of those 65 populations contained embryotoxic concentrations of selenium in the eggs. An analysis at the study-area level was made of the relation between selenium contamination of water and selenium contamination of the food chain and egg loss due to selenium poisoning. Most food organisms, particularly aquatic invertebrates and fish, contained potentially harmful amounts of selenium in study areas where selenium concentrations in more than 25 percent of the water samples exceed 5 µg/L. The analysis also indicates that some hens are predicted to lose eggs to selenium poisoning in all study areas where selenium concentrations in more than 25 percent of the water samples exceed 5 µg/L. These results suggest that areas where selenium contamination of the food chain and loss of eggs to selenium poisoning is occurring may be identified using the same methods developed to identify areas where selenium contamination of water is likely to occur.

western United States↗

A Regional Approach to Wildlife Monitoring Related to Energy Exploration and Development in Colorado

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is currently developing a National Monitoring Strategy that will guide efforts to create an efficient and effective process for monitoring land health by BLM. To inform the ongoing development of the national strategy, BLM selected two States (Colorado, Alaska) to serve as focal areas on which to base a flexible framework for developing monitoring programs that evaluate wildlife responses to energy development. We developed a three-phase monitoring plan to serve as a template and applied it to the design of a monitoring program for the Colorado focal area (White River and Glenwood Springs Field Offices of the BLM). Phase I is a synthesis and assessment of current conditions that capitalizes on existing but under used data sources. A key component is the use of existing habitat and landscape models to evaluate the cumulative effects of surface disturbance. Phase II is the data collection process that uses information provided in Phase I to refine management objectives and provide a linkage to management decisions. The linkage is established through targeted monitoring, adaptive management, and research. Phase III establishes priorities and strategies for regional and national monitoring, and facilitates coordination among other land management agencies and organizations. The three phases are designed to be flexible and complementary. The monitoring plan guides an iterative process that is performed incrementally, beginning with the highest-priority species and management issues, while building on lessons learned and coordination among administrative levels. The activities associated with each phase can be repeated or updated as new information, data, or tools become available. This allows the development of a monitoring program that expands gradually and allows for rapid implementation. A demonstration application of the three-phase monitoring plan was conducted for a study area encompassing five BLM field offices in Colorado: White River, Glenwood Springs, Kremmling, Grand Junction, and Little Snake. The overall study area was selected to encompass the primary distribution of sagebrush and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Colorado and to provide a larger context for evaluating priority management issues of the White River and Glenwood Springs Field Offices. Within the study area, we selected an additional scale of analysis: the Roan Plateau, an area of increased energy development. We focused our demonstration project on the primary objectives identified by the BLM and other stakeholders: (1) How do we evaluate the cumulative effects of energy development and mitigation activities on species of management interest or concern? (2) How can cumulative effects, including direct and indirect effects, be quantified relative to natural variation? (3) How can we implement compliance and effectiveness monitoring to determine whether lease stipulations are met and restoration/mitigation goals are achieved? We targeted greater sage-grouse because this species was identified as a monitoring priority for the White River Field Office. We also evaluated landscape-level indices to address fragmentation resulting from surface disturbance. The primary purpose of this exercise was to highlight the types of analyses and approaches that could be used to evaluate energy development in an application of the three-phase framework. We provide examples of Phase I products that can be used to guide the refinement of management objectives, development of adaptive management and research frameworks, and planning activities in Phase II. Finally, we report on the BLM's National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy as an example of Phase III activities. The development of an effective monitoring program is a daunting task, and will be difficult to implement by the BLM independently due to the current work load of staff. However, the scientific expertise and experience for developing cr

Open-File Report↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Tectonic and metallogenic model for northeast Asia, Chapter 9 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↗

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↗

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

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↗

Synthesis of studies in the fall low-salinity zone of the San Francisco Estuary, September-December 2011

In fall 2011, a large-scale investigation (fall low-salinity habitat investigation) was implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the Interagency Ecological Program to explore hypotheses about the ecological role of low-salinity habitat in the San Francisco Estuary—specifically, hypotheses about the importance of fall low-salinity habitat to the biology of delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus , a species endemic to the San Francisco Estuary and listed as threatened or endangered under federal and state endangered species legislation. The Interagency Ecological Program is a consortium of 10 agencies that work together to develop a better understanding of the ecology of the Estuary and the effects of the State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project operations on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the San Francisco Estuary. The fall low-salinity habitat investigation constitutes one of the actions stipulated in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative issued with the 2008 Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which called for adaptive management of fall Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta outflow following “wet” and “above normal” water years to alleviate jeopardy to delta smelt and adverse modification of delta smelt critical habitat. The basic hypothesis of the adaptive management of fall low-salinity habitat is that greater outflows move the low-salinity zone (salinity 1–6), an important component of delta smelt habitat, westward and that moving the low-salinity zone westward of its position in the fall of recent years will benefit delta smelt, although the specific mechanisms providing such benefit are uncertain. An adaptive management plan was prepared to guide implementation of the adaptive management of fall low-salinity habitat and to reduce uncertainty. This report has three major objectives: • To provide a summary of the results from the first year of coordinated fall low-salinity habitat studies and monitoring. • To provide a synthesis of the results of the fall low-salinity habitat studies and other ongoing research and monitoring, to determine if the available information supports the hypotheses behind the adaptive management of fall low-salinity habitat as set forth in the adaptive management plan. • To begin to put the results from the fall low-salinity habitat studies into context within the larger body of knowledge regarding the San Francisco Estuary and, in particular, the upper San Francisco Estuary, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun Bay, and associated embayments. The basic approach of this report is to evaluate predictions derived from the hypotheses included in the conceptual model developed within the adaptive management plan. All available data from studies and monitoring conducted in fall 2011 and similar data from fall 2006, which was the most recent wet year preceding 2011, were considered. Data from 2005 and 2010 were also considered, to include the conditions antecedent to those years. Many of the predictions either could not be evaluated with the data available, or the needed data were not collected. Most of the predictions that could be addressed involved either the abiotic habitat components (that is, the physical environment) or delta smelt responses. In general, the fall low-salinity habitat investigation has been largely inconclusive as of the writing of this report. This is not to be unexpected in the first year of what is intended to be a multi-year adaptive-management effort. This report can be viewed as the first chapter of a “living document” that is to be continually updated as part of the adaptive management cycle. The results of this report, especially predictions with insufficient data for evaluation, indicate a number of science-based approaches to improve the fall low-salinity habitat investigations: • Develop a method of measuring “hydrodynamic complexity.” This concept is central to a number of the predictions that could not be evaluated. • Determine if wind speed warrants a stand-alone prediction. The wind-speed prediction is directly related to the turbidity predictions, and wind is only one of several factors important for determining turbidity. • Determine the correct spatial and temporal scale or scales necessary for monitoring and for studies to address the predicted abiotic and biotic responses. Many of the assessments in this report were based on monthly sampling of dynamic habitat components, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, that can change on daily scales. • Address the nutrient predictions as part of developing a phytoplankton production model that includes nutrient cycling and other important processes, if feasible. At a minimum develop a mechanistic conceptual model to support more processed-based interpretations of data or design of new studies, rather than making simple predictions of increase or decrease. • Determine if studies of predation rates are feasible in areas where there are delta smelt.

California↗

Preliminary hydrogeologic assessment and study plan for a regional ground-water resource investigation of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces of North Carolina

Prolonged drought, allocation of surface-water flow, and increased demands on ground-water supplies resulting from population growth are focuses for the need to evaluate ground-water resources in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces of North Carolina. Urbanization and certain aspects of agricultural production also have caused increased concerns about protecting the quality of ground water in this region. More than 75 percent of the State's population resides in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces in an area that covers 30,544 square miles and 65 counties. Between 1940 and 2000, the population in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces increased from 2.66 to 6.11 million; most of this increase occurred in the Piedmont. Of the total population, an estimated 1.97 million people, or 32.3 percent (based on the 1990 census), relied on ground water for a variety of uses, including commercial, industrial, and most importantly, potable supplies. Ground water in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont traditionally has not been considered as a source for large supplies, primarily because of readily available and seemingly limitless surface-water supplies, and the perception that ground water in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces occurs in a complex, generally heterogeneous geologic environment. Some reluctance to use ground water for large supplies derives from the reputation of aquifers in these provinces for producing low yields to wells, and the few high-yield wells that are drilled seem to be scattered in areas distant from where they are needed. Because the aquifers in these provinces are shallow, they also are susceptible to contamination by activities on the land surface. In response to these issues, the North Carolina Legislature supported the creation of a Resource Evaluation Program to ensure the long-term availability, sustainability, and quality of ground water in the State. As part of the Resource Evaluation Program, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, initiated a multiyear study of ground water in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces. The study began in 1999. Most of the study area is underlain by a complex, two-part, regolith-fractured crystalline rock aquifer system. Thickness of the regolith throughout the study area is highly variable and ranges from 0 to more than 150 feet. The regolith consists of an unconsolidated or semiconsolidated mixture of clay and fragmental material ranging in grain size from silt to boulders. Because porosities range from 35 to 55 percent, the regolith provides the bulk of the water storage within the Blue Ridge and Piedmont ground-water system. At the base of the regolith is the transition zone where saprolite grades into unweathered bedrock. The transition zone has been identified as a potential conduit for rapid ground-water flow. If this is the case, the transition zone also may serve as a conduit for rapid movement of contaminants to nearby wells or to streams with channels that cut into 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina. 2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section. or through the transition zone. How rapidly a contaminant moves through the system largely may be a function of the characteristics of the transition zone. The transition zone is one of several topics identified during the literature review and data synthesis, for which there is a deficiency in data and understanding of the processes involved in the movement of ground water to surface water. Because the Blue Ridge and Piedmont study area is so large, and the hydrogeology diverse, it is not feasible to study all of the area in detail. A more feasible approach is to select areas that are most representative of the land use, geology, and hydrology to obtain an understanding of the hydrologic processes in the selected areas, and transfer the knowledge from these local "type areas" to similar regional hydrogeologic areas. For the purpose of this study, the term "type area" applies to a 10- to 100-square mile area within a hydrogeologic terrane where information is sufficient to develop and test a concept of ground-water flow by using analytical or numerical methods that can be validated by field measurements. Ideally, these type areas are selected to be representative of the flow system that is present wherever a particular hydrogeologic terrane is present. This report consists of two basic parts. The first part describes the results of a comprehensive review and synthesis of information and literature that provides the basic background for the study. This includes current (2002) knowledge regarding general geology and the hydrogeologic framework of the fractured-rock aquifer system that underlies the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces. In spite of the quantity of information identified during the literature review and the amount of past work that has been documented, there are still research needs to be met. The second part of the report describes State ground-water issues and problems, available data, and data deficiencies. It also describes the design and implementation of efforts to characterize ground-water quality and to quantify factors that influence the movement and availability of ground water in the hydrogeologic terranes characterized by (1) massive or foliated crystalline rocks overlain by thick regolith and (2) massive or foliated crystalline rocks overlain by thin regolith. As of September 2001, seven sites had been identified as potential study sites to be used to characterize the hydrogeology and water quality of ype areas considered representative of the larger terranes. Detailed geologic mapping, core drilling, well installation, and surface and borehole geophysical surveys are in progress at four of the sites.

North Carolina↗