SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Resources”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,279 records · Page 71Linked to original sources

USGS2004

Water Quality and Streamflow of the Indian River, Sitka, Alaska, 2001-02

The Indian River Basin, located near Sitka Alaska, drains an area of 12.3 square miles. This watershed is an important natural resource of Sitka National Historic Park. At the present time, the watershed faces possible development on large tracts of private land upstream of the park that could affect the water quality of Indian River. Due to this concern, a study was conducted cooperatively with the National Park Service. The approach was to examine the water quality of the Indian River in the upper part of the watershed where no development has occurred and in the lower part of the basin where development has taken place. Measurements of pH, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen concentrations of the Indian River were within acceptable ranges for fish survival. The Indian River is calcium bicarbonate type water with a low buffering capacity. Concentrations of dissolved ions and nutrients generally were low and exhibited little variation between the two study sites. Analysis of bed sediment trace element concentrations at both sampling sites indicates the threshold effect concentration was exceeded for arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc; while the probable effect concentration was exceeded by arsenic, chromium and nickel. However, due to relatively large amounts of organic carbon present in the bed sediments, the potential toxicity from trace elements is low. Discharge in the Indian River is typical of coastal southeast Alaska streams where low flows generally are in late winter and early spring and greater flows are during the wetter fall months. Alaska Department of Fish and Game has established instream flow reservations on the lower 2.5 miles of the Indian River. Discharge data indicate minimum flow requirements were not achieved during 236 days of the study period. Natural low flows are frequently below the flow reservations, but diversions resulted in flow reservations not being met a total of 140 days. Thirty-five algae species were identified from the sample collected at Indian River near Sitka while 24 species were identified from the sample collected at Indian River at Sitka. Most species of algae identified in the Indian River samples were diatoms and the majority were pinnate diatoms; however, green algae and (or) blue-green algae accounted for much of the algal biomass at the two sites. The trophic condition of the Indian River is oligotrophic, and algal productivity likely is limited by low concentrations of dissolved nitrogen. Few invertebrate taxa were collected relative to many high-quality streams in the contiguous United States, but the number of taxa in Indian River appears to be typical of Alaska streams. Ephemeroptera was the most abundant order sampled followed by Diptera.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2025

The transition from resistance to acceptance: Managing a marine invasive species in a changing world

Marine invasive species can transform coastal ecosystems, yet mitigating their effects can be difficult, and even impractical. Often, marine invasive species are managed at poorly matched spatial scales, and at the same time, rates of spread and establishment are increasing under climate change and can outpace resources available for population suppression. These circumstances challenge traditional conservation goals of maintaining a historic environmental state, especially for a species like the European green crab ( Carcinus maenas ), a formidable invader with few examples of successful long-term removal programs. A management paradigm where decision alternatives include resisting or accepting a new ecological trajectory may be needed. We apply mathematical concepts from decision theory to develop a quantitative framework for navigating management decisions in this new resist-accept paradigm. We develop a model of European green crab growth, removal and colonization, and we find optimal levels of removal effort that minimize both ecological change and removal cost. We establish a benchmark of colonization pressure at which green crab density becomes decoupled from a decision maker's actions, such that population control can no longer shape the invasion trajectory. For informing the decision boundary between resistance and acceptance, our results highlight that a decision maker's understanding of how removal cost scales with removal effort is more important than understanding the density-impact relationship. We show that assuming stationary system dynamics can result in sub-optimal levels of species removal effort, highlighting the importance of developing anticipatory management strategies by accounting for non-stationary dynamics. Policy implications . For marine invasive species that can disperse across long distances and recolonize rapidly after removal, the focus of conservation policy should shift away from understanding how to resist change to understanding when to stop resisting change. Navigating this decision problem involves trade-offs among competing objectives, highlighting the need for structured approaches to elicit objective weights that reflect the values of the decision maker. For natural resource managers facing possible ecosystem transformation, this decision framework can enable proactive and strategic decisions made under uncertainty in a changing world.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗

USGS1983

Platte River Forum for the Future: workshop model documentation

The Platte River Forum for the Future (PRFF) is an effort by the Nebraska Natural Resources Commission (NNRC) to bring together representatives of interests and agencies concerned with management of the Platte River and, assisted by various computer technologies, to reach some degree of agreement on the “best uses” of the remaining waters of the Platte. Simulation modeling is being used in this effort as a focal point for developing a common understanding of the behavior of the Platte River system, synthesizing existing information, identifying additional needed information, and analyzing the potential consequences of various management alternatives. The NNRC initiated the project in August 1982 by convening a workshop for interested parties in Grand Island, Nebraska. This workshop was devoted to construction of a preliminary simulation model describing the Platte River system. A group of facilitators/modelers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) assisted participants in translating their understanding of the Platte River into the framework of the model. In October 1982, FWS personnel began a process of training several people from Nebraska in the use of the model. At that time, minor revisions and corrections were made in the model and various development scenarios were prepared for discussion with participants at a second workshop, which was held in early November 1982. The purpose of this report is to document the status of the PRFF simulation model as of the end of the November 1982 meeting. We emphasize that the intent is not to describe a final product. Except for minor revisions and correction of obvious errors, the model described herein is that which existed at the end of the August workshop. The model contains the foundation for a comprehensive aid to decisionmakers, but at this time it is preliminary in nature, needing refinement and verification before it can be truly useful in analyzing management alternatives. The purpose of this report is to provide a solid foundation for that important future work. The report is divided into three basic parts. The first is a brief overview of the various components of the model and how they fit together. It is intended for those who are not particularly interested in the details of model formulation. The second is a detailed discussion of the logic, assumptions, equations, and data used in constructing the model. This detailed description is also referenced to specific sections of the third part, which is a set of appendices containing listings of the computer code as it presently exists.

Nebraska↗

USGS2026

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↗

USGS2022

Characterization of water quality, biology, and habitat of the Pearl River and selected tributaries contiguous to and within Tribal lands of the Pearl River Community of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 2017–18

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI), conducted a baseline assessment of the physical, chemical, and biological quality of selected streams and rivers within and contiguous to the Pearl River Community (PRC) in 2017 and 2018. The MBCI is a federally recognized tribe with territories in Mississippi and Tennessee. MBCI Tribal government and communities have sovereign authority over their natural resources and are responsible for protecting the quality of waters within the Tribal lands from sources of pollution and restoring impaired waters. The quality of these surface waters has a profound effect upon the health and welfare of MBCI Tribal members. Data generated from this study may be used with other relevant water-quality data for comparison and development of Tribal water-quality standards. The PRC territory is drained by the Pearl River and associated tributaries. Water-quality and biological samples were collected and habitat surveys were conducted at sites on the mainstem of the Pearl River and major tributaries of the Pearl River—Wolf Creek, Beasha Creek, Jones Creek, and Kentawka Creek. The selected stream sites represent a range of land use/land cover and potential sources of alteration and contamination from within their respective drainage areas. In particular, Wolf Creek watershed has the highest relative percentage of developed land. Ambient physicochemical properties, major ions, nutrients, and organic wastewater compounds (OWCs) were analyzed quarterly from surface-water samples from October 2017 through August 2018. Physicochemical properties were also measured in June 2018 over a continuous 48-hour period. Trace elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were analyzed from streambed sediments in August 2018. Biological samples included the collection of periphyton algae (August 2018), benthic macroinvertebrate (March 2017 and March 2018), and fish communities (April 2018). Physical stream habitat characteristics were assessed using qualitative (March 2017 and March 2018) and quantitative surveys (August 2018). While not directly applicable, the State of Mississippi Water Quality Standards were used as reference to evaluate Tribal water quality. Physicochemical water-quality constituents—water temperature, specific conductance (SC), pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO)—were generally within natural ranges among sites and samples, with a few exceptions that exceeded existing Mississippi water-quality standards. pH and DO periodically were below the minimum State standards at some sampled sites. Specific conductance was also relatively high at both Wolf Creek sites but did not exceed the existing maximum standard for recreational waters. The surface water among stream sites was predominantly calcium bicarbonate type, with a shift toward sodium-bicarbonate water type at the downstream Wolf Creek (Wolf DS) site. Major ion concentrations were generally highest at the Wolf Creek sites. Nutrient concentrations were also often highest at Wolf DS, but total nitrogen and total phosphorus periodically exceeded recommended State and Federal nutrient criteria thresholds among most sampled sites. Twenty-nine OWCs, including 10 known or suspected endocrine disruptors, were detected among sites. Concentrations of OWCs were relatively low, and only 19 percent of all detections were above the reporting level. Concentrations of copper and nickel in streambed sediments were detected above consensus-based threshold-effect concentrations (TECs) at one site each, and arsenic and chromium exceeded TECs at most sites. Concentrations of all polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in streambed sediments were low and well below TECs at all sites. The periphyton, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities at most sampled sites appear typical of central Mississippi streams; however, the diversity, composition, and abundance of taxa sampled from Wolf DS were particularly distinctive compared to other sampled stream sites. Periphyton taxa richness was low at both Wolf Creek sites, and both sites had greater abundances of diatom taxa, which are indicative of high nutrient concentrations, than of soft-algae taxa. Similarly, Wolf DS had relatively low macroinvertebrate diversity, the fewest Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa, a high abundance of Tubificid taxa, and the lowest overall Mississippi-Benthic Index of Stream Quality score. Fish species richness was also relatively low at Wolf DS compared to some other sampled sites. Habitat characteristics also appeared to be generally typical of most central Mississippi streams. Qualitative habitat assessment scores were at or above the regional least disturbed streams for Wolf DS, the upstream Wolf Creek (Wolf US) site, and Jones Creek. Habitat scores among the remaining sites indicate fair conditions. Quantitative and qualitative habitat characteristics indicate relatively lower habitat quality at the two Beasha Creek sites.

Mississippi↗

USGS1997

Map showing outcrop of the coal-bearing units and land use in the Gulf Coast region

This map is a preliminary compilation of the outcrop geology of the known coal-bearing units in the Gulf Coast Coal region. The map has been compiled for use in the National Coal Resource Assessment Project currently being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, and will be updated as the assessment progresses. The purpose of the map is to show the distribution of coal-bearing rocks in the Gulf Coastal Plain Region and to show stratigraphic correlations, transportation network, fossil-fuel burning power plants, and federally managed lands in the region. It is hoped that this map may aid coal exploration and development in the region. Geologic contacts were digitized from paper copies of the maps listed in the reference section below. The primary source of information was the 1:500,000-scale state geology map series, but larger scale maps were use to better define certain areas, notably the Jackson-Claiborne contact in western Kentucky and Tennessee for example (Olive, 1980). Contacts along state boundaries were modified to best-fit information available from the border areas. Note that coal distribution in the mapped units is not uniform. For example, the Jackson Group contains coal in Texas, but in Mississippi is not presently known to contain significant coal deposits. The unit is widespread and in part non-marine and thus of potential future interest. In contrast, the Jackson Group is not shown in Georgia where it is mostly marine and residuum (weathered material) at the surface. Tertiary age coal has also been noted in the Vicksburg Group (Oligocene) of Louisiana and Mississippi, but is not shown on this map. Contacts with mapped surficial units are not always shown. The locations of coal mine permit boundaries are based on information available at the time of publication and were obtained from the Division of Surface Mining and Reclamation, Railroad Commission of Texas, Austin, and the Injection and Mining Division, Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The correlation of map units and formation names generally follow Galloway and others (1991). We have placed the Paleocene-Eocene boundary in the middle of the Calvert Bluff Formation in Texas based on unpublished pollen biostratigraphy reports (N.O. Fredericksen, unpublished data, 1993; D.J. Nichols, unpublished data, 1996).

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Kansas, Kentu↗

USGS2009

Comparison of Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characteristics of Two Native Tallgrass Prairie Streams with Agricultural Streams in Missouri and Kansas

This report presents the results of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, to analyze and compare hydrologic and water-quality characteristics of tallgrass prairie and agricultural basins located within the historical distribution of tallgrass prairie in Missouri and Kansas. Streamflow and water-quality data from two remnant, tallgrass prairie basins (East Drywood Creek at Prairie State Park, Missouri, and Kings Creek near Manhattan, Kansas) were compared to similar data from agricultural basins in Missouri and Kansas. Prairie streams, especially Kings Creek in eastern Kansas, received a higher percentage of base flow and a lower percentage of direct runoff than similar-sized agricultural streams in the region. A larger contribution of direct runoff from the agricultural streams made them much flashier than prairie streams. During 22 years of record, the Kings Creek base-flow component averaged 66 percent of total flow, but base flow was only 16 to 26 percent of flows at agricultural sites of various record periods. The large base-flow component likely is the result of greater infiltration of precipitation in prairie soils and the resulting greater contribution of groundwater to streamflow. The 1- and 3-day annual maximum flows were significantly greater at three agricultural sites than at Kings Creek. The effects of flashier agricultural streams on native aquatic biota are unknown, but may be an important factor in the sustainability of some native aquatic species. There were no significant differences in the distribution of dissolved-oxygen concentrations at prairie and agricultural sites, and some samples from most sites fell below the 5 milligrams per liter Missouri and Kansas standard for the protection of aquatic life. More than 10 percent of samples from the East Drywood Creek prairie stream were less than this standard. These data indicate low dissolved-oxygen concentrations during summer low-flow periods may be a natural phenomenon for small prairie streams in the Osage Plains. Nutrient concentrations including total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, and total phosphorus were significantly less in base-flow and runoff samples from prairie streams than from agricultural streams. The total nitrogen concentration at all sites other than one of two prairie sampling sites were, on occasion, above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended criterion for total nitrogen for the prevention of nutrient enrichment, and typically were above this recommended criterion in runoff samples at all sites. Nitrate and total phosphorus concentrations in samples from the prairie streams generally were below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended nutrient criteria in base-flow and runoff samples, whereas samples from agricultural sites generally were below the criteria in base-flow samples and generally above in runoff samples. The lower concentrations of nutrient species in prairie streams is likely because prairies are not fertilized like agricultural basins and prairie basins are able to retain nutrients better than agricultural basins. This retention is enhanced by increased infiltration of precipitation into the prairie soils, decreased surface runoff, and likely less erosion than in agricultural basins. Streamflow in the small native prairie streams had more days of zero flow and lower streamflow yields than similar-sized agricultural streams. The prairie streams were at zero flow about 50 percent of the time, and the agricultural streams were at zero flow 25 to 35 percent of the time. Characteristics of the prairie basins that could account for the greater periods of zero flow and lower yields when compared to agricultural streams include greater infiltration, greater interception and evapotranspiration, shallower soils, and possible greater seepage losses in the prairie basins. Another difference between the prairie and agricultural strea

Scientific Investigations Report↗

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

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↗

USGS2010

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↗

USGS2010

Appendix A: Description of the Northeast Asia Project and Associated Products

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↗