Results for “Natural Resources” — Page 72

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↗

USGS2009

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

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

Professional Paper↗

USGS2010

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

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↗

USGS2005

Effects of best-management practices in Otter Creek in the Sheboygan River Priority Watershed, Wisconsin, 1990-2002

The U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources began a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation-monitoring program in 1989 to assess the effectiveness of the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Program. Hydrologic, water-quality, habitat, and fish data were collected at Otter Creek from 1990 to 2002 with the pre-BMP (best-management practice) period ending in September 1993 and the post-BMP period beginning in October 1999. BMPs installed in this basin included streambank protection and fencing, stream crossings, grade stabilization, buffer strips, various barnyard-runoff controls, nutrient management, and a low degree of upland BMPs. Reductions between pre- and post-BMP periods were detected in median concentrations of base-flow samples for total suspended solids and BOD5 but not for total phosphorus or dissolved ammonia nitrogen; fecal coliform concentrations in base-flow samples increased over the study period. Reductions in rainfall storm loads between the pre- and post-BMP periods during the non-vegetative season (November through May) were detected for all three constituents monitored (total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and dissolved ammonia nitrogen). Differences in rainfall storm loads of these three constituents for the vegetative season (June through October) were not detected. When considering rainfall data from the entire year, reductions in storm loads were detected for total suspended solids and dissolved ammonia nitrogen (reductions were estimated at 58 percent for total suspended solids and 41 percent for dissolved ammonia nitrogen). Annual reductions in rainfall storm loads for the non-vegetative season were estimated at 58 percent for total suspended solids, 48 percent for total phosphorus, and 41 percent for dissolved ammonia nitrogen. Habitat and fish data were collected each year of the study to track the effects of BMPs on stream habitat and fish communities. Final trend analysis was performed using habitat quality index scores, an index of biotic integrity, and some of the originally measured fish and habitat variables. Habitat was improved for stream segments that had either natural riparian buffer or where streambank fencing was installed, but not at the station where the riparian area was pasture and no streambank fencing was installed. The results also suggest that BMP implementation in Otter Creek substantially modified fish community structure, but the overall community quality was not improved.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2014

Effect of passive acoustic sampling methodology on detecting bats after declines from white nose syndrome

Concomitant with the emergence and spread of white-nose syndrome (WNS) and precipitous decline of many bat species in North America, natural resource managers need modified and/or new techniques for bat inventory and monitoring that provide robust occupancy estimates. We used Anabat acoustic detectors to determine the most efficient passive acoustic sampling design for optimizing detection probabilities of multiple bat species in a WNS-impacted environment in New York, USA. Our sampling protocol included: six acoustic stations deployed for the entire duration of monitoring as well as a 4 x 4 grid and five transects of 5-10 acoustic units that were deployed for 6-8 night sample durations surveyed during the summers of 2011-2012. We used Program PRESENCE to determine detection probability and site occupancy estimates. Overall, the grid produced the highest detection probabilities for most species because it contained the most detectors and intercepted the greatest spatial area. However, big brown bats ( Eptesicus fuscus ) and species not impacted by WNS were detected easily regardless of sampling array. Endangered Indiana ( Myotis sodalis ) and little brown ( Myotis lucifugus ) and tri-colored bats ( Perimyotis subflavus ) showed declines in detection probabilities over our study, potentially indicative of continued WNS-associated declines. Identification of species presence through efficient methodologies is vital for future conservation efforts as bat populations decline further due to WNS and other factors.

Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment↗

USGS2015

Spatial patterns of atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur using ion-exchange resin collectors in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA

Lakes and streams in Class 1 wilderness areas in the western United States (U.S.) are at risk from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S), and protection of these resources is mandated under the Federal Clean Air Act and amendments. Assessment of critical loads, which are the maximum exposure to pollution an area can receive without adverse effects on sensitive ecosystems, requires accurate deposition estimates. However, deposition is difficult and expensive to measure in high-elevation wilderness, and spatial patterns in N and S deposition in these areas remain poorly quantified. In this study, ion-exchange resin (IER) collectors were used to measure dissolved inorganic N (DIN) and S deposition during June 2006–September 2007 at approximately 20 alpine/subalpine sites spanning the Continental Divide in Rocky Mountain National Park. Results indicated good agreement between deposition estimated from IER collectors and commonly used wet + dry methods during summer, but poor agreement during winter. Snowpack sampling was found to be a more accurate way of quantifying DIN and S deposition during winter. Summer DIN deposition was significantly greater on the east side of the park than on the west side (25–50%; p ≤ 0.03), consistent with transport of pollutants to the park from urban and agricultural areas to the east. Sources of atmospheric nitrate (NO 3 − ) were examined using N isotopes. The average δ 15 N of NO 3 − from IER collectors was 3.5&permil; higher during winter than during summer ( p < 0.001), indicating a seasonal shift in the relative importance of regional NO x sources, such as coal combustion and vehicular sources of atmospheric NO 3 − . There were no significant differences in δ 15 N of NO 3 − between east and west sides of the park during summer or winter ( p = 0.83), indicating that the two areas may have similar sources of atmospheric NO 3 − . Results from this study indicate that a combination of IER collectors and snowpack sampling can be used to characterize spatial variability in DIN and S deposition in high-elevation wilderness areas. These data can improve our ability to model critical loads by filling gaps in geographic coverage of deposition monitoring/modeling programs and thus may enable policy makers to better protect sensitive natural resources in Class 1 Wilderness areas.

Colorado↗

USGS2002

Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach

Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the United States has made great strides to reduce the threats to its rivers, lakes, and wetlands from pollution. However, despite our obvious successes, nearly half of the nation’s surface water resources remain incapable of supporting basic aquatic values or maintaining water quality adequate for recreational swimming. The Clean Water Act established a significant federal presence in water quality regulation by controlling point and non-point sources of pollution. Point-sources of pollution were the major emphasis of the Act, but Section 208 specifically addressed non-point sources of pollution and designated silviculture and livestock grazing as sources of non-point pollution. Non-point source pollutants include runoff from agriculture, municipalities, timber harvesting, mining, and livestock grazing. Non-point source pollution now accounts for more than half of the United States water quality impairments. To successfully improve water quality, restoration practitioners must start with an understanding of what ecosystem processes are operating in the watershed and how they have been affected by outside variables. A watershed-based analysis template developed in the Pacific Northwest can be a valuable aid in developing that level of understanding. The watershed analysis technique identifies four ecosystem scales useful to identify stream restoration priorities: region, basin, watershed, and site. The watershed analysis technique is based on a set of technically rigorous and defensible procedures designed to provide information on what processes are active at the watershed scale, how those processes are distributed in time and space. They help describe what the current upland and riparian conditions of the watershed are and how these conditions in turn influence aquatic habitat and other beneficial uses. The analysis is organized as a set of six steps that direct an interdisciplinary team of specialists to examine the biotic and abiotic processes influencing aquatic habitat and species abundance. This process helps develop an understanding of the watershed within the context of the larger ecosystem. The understanding gained can then be used to identify and prioritize aquatic restoration activities at the appropriate temporal and spatial scale. The watershed approach prevents relying solely on site-level information, a common problem with historic restoration efforts. When the watershed analysis process was used in the Whitefish Mountains of northwest Montana, natural resource professionals were able to determine the dominant habitat forming processes important for native fishes and use that information to prioritize, plan, and implement the appropriate restoration activities at the watershed scale. Despite considerable investments of time and resources needed to complete an analysis at the watershed scale, the results can prevent the misdiagnosis of aquatic problems and help ensure that the objectives of aquatic restoration will be met.

Journal of Environmental Management↗

USGS2015

Potential groundwater recharge for the State of Minnesota using the Soil-Water-Balance model, 1996-2010

Groundwater recharge is one of the most difficult components of a water budget to ascertain, yet is an important boundary condition necessary for the quantification of water resources. In Minnesota, improved estimates of recharge are necessary because approximately 75 percent of drinking water and 90 percent of agricultural irrigation water in Minnesota are supplied from groundwater. The water that is withdrawn must be supplied by some combination of (1) increased recharge, (2) decreased discharge to streams, lakes, and other surface-water bodies, and (3) removal of water that was stored in the system. Recent pressure on groundwater resources has highlighted the need to provide more accurate recharge estimates for various tools that can assess the sustainability of long-term water use. As part of this effort, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, used the Soil-Water-Balance model to calculate gridded estimates of potential groundwater recharge across Minnesota for 1996‒2010 at a 1-kilometer (0.621-mile) resolution. The potential groundwater recharge estimates calculated for Minnesota from the Soil-Water Balance model included gridded values (1-kilometer resolution) of annual mean estimates (that is, the means for individual years from 1996 through 2010) and mean annual estimates (that is, the mean for the 15-year period 1996−2010). The Soil-Water-Balance model uses a modified Thornthwaite-Mather soil-water-balance approach, with components of the soil-water balance calculated on a daily basis. A key advantage of this approach includes the use of commonly available geographic information system data layers that incorporate land cover, soil properties, and daily meteorological data to produce temporally and spatially variable gridded estimates of potential recharge. The Soil-Water-Balance model was calibrated by using a combination of parameter estimation techniques, making manual adjustments of model parameters, and using parameter values from previously published Soil-Water-Balance models. Each calibration simulation compared the potential recharge estimate from the model against base-flow estimates derived from three separate hydrograph separation techniques. A total of 35 Minnesota watersheds were selected for the model calibration. Meteorological data necessary for the model included daily precipitation, minimum daily temperature, and maximum daily temperature. All of the meteorological data were provided by the Daymet dataset, which included daily continuous surfaces of key climatological data. Land-cover data were provided by the 2001 and 2006 National Land Cover Database: the 2001 classification was used from 1994 through 2003, and the 2006 classification was used from 2004 through 2010. Soil data used in the model included hydrologic soils group and the available soil-water capacity. These soil data were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database and the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The statewide mean annual potential recharge rate from 1996–2010 was 4.9 inches per year. Potential recharge estimates increased from west to east across Minnesota. The mean annual potential recharge estimates across Minnesota at a 1-km resolution for the overall simulation period (1996–2010) ranged from less than 0.1 to 17.8 inches per year. Some of the lowest potential recharge rates for the simulation period were in the Red River of the North Basin of northwestern Minnesota, and generally were between 1.0 and 1.5 inches per year. The highest potential recharge rates were in northeastern Minnesota and the Anoka Sand Plain in central Minnesota. Eighty-eight percent of the potential recharge rates (by grid cell) were between 2 and 8 inches per year from 1996–2010. Only about 3 percent of all the potential recharge estimates (by grid cell) were less than 2 inches per year, and 9 percent of estimates were greater than 8 inches per year. On an annual basis, however, potential recharge rates were as high as 27.2 inches per year. The highest annual mean recharge estimate across the State was for 2010, and the lowest mean recharge estimate was for 2003. Although precipitation variability partially explained the annual differences in potential recharge estimates, precipitation alone did not account for these differences, and other factors such as antecedent moisture conditions likely were important. Also, because precipitation gradients across the State can vary from year to year, the dominant land-cover class and hydrologic soil group combinations for a particular region had a large effect on the resulting potential recharge value. During 1996–2010, April had the greatest monthly mean potential recharge compared to all other months, accounting for a mean of 30 percent of annual potential recharge in this single month.

Minnesota↗

USGS2008

Simulation of the Quantity, Variability, and Timing of Streamflow in the Dennys River Basin, Maine, by Use of a Precipitation-Runoff Watershed Model

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Maine Department of Marine Resources Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat, began a study in 2004 to characterize the quantity, variability, and timing of streamflow in the Dennys River. The study included a synoptic summary of historical streamflow data at a long-term streamflow gage, collecting data from an additional four short-term streamflow gages, and the development and evaluation of a distributed-parameter watershed model for the Dennys River Basin. The watershed model used in this investigation was the USGS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS). The Geographic Information System (GIS) Weasel was used to delineate the Dennys River Basin and subbasins and derive parameters for their physical geographic features. Calibration of the models used in this investigation involved a four-step procedure in which model output was evaluated against four calibration data sets using computed objective functions for solar radiation, potential evapotranspiration, annual and seasonal water budgets, and daily streamflows. The calibration procedure involved thousands of model runs and was carried out using the USGS software application Luca (Let us calibrate). Luca uses the Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE) global search algorithm to calibrate the model parameters. The SCE method reliably produces satisfactory solutions for large, complex optimization problems. The primary calibration effort went into the Dennys main stem watershed model. Calibrated parameter values obtained for the Dennys main stem model were transferred to the Cathance Stream model, and a similar four-step SCE calibration procedure was performed; this effort was undertaken to determine the potential to transfer modeling information to a nearby basin in the same region. The calibrated Dennys main stem watershed model performed with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) statistic values for the calibration period and evaluation period of 0.79 and 0.76, respectively. The Cathance Stream model had an NSE value of 0.68. The Dennys River Basin models make use of limited streamflow-gaging station data and provide information to characterize subbasin hydrology. The calibrated PRMS watershed models of the Dennys River Basin provide simulated daily streamflow time series from October 1, 1985, through September 30, 2006, for nearly any location within the basin. These models enable natural-resources managers to characterize the timing and quantity of water moving through the basin to support many endeavors including geochemical calculations, water-use assessment, Atlantic salmon population dynamics and migration modeling, habitat modeling and assessment, and other resource-management scenario evaluations. Characterizing streamflow contributions from subbasins in the basin and the relative amounts of surface- and ground-water contributions to streamflow throughout the basin will lead to a better understanding of water quantity and quality in the basin. Improved water-resources information will support Atlantic salmon protection efforts.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2014

Threshold-dependent sample sizes for selenium assessment with stream fish tissue

Natural resource managers are developing assessments of selenium (Se) contamination in freshwater ecosystems based on fish tissue concentrations. We evaluated the effects of sample size (i.e., number of fish per site) on the probability of correctly detecting mean whole-body Se values above a range of potential management thresholds. We modeled Se concentrations as gamma distributions with shape and scale parameters fitting an empirical mean-to-variance relationship in data from southwestern West Virginia, USA (63 collections, 382 individuals). We used parametric bootstrapping techniques to calculate statistical power as the probability of detecting true mean concentrations up to 3 mg Se/kg above management thresholds ranging from 4 to 8 mg Se/kg. Sample sizes required to achieve 80% power varied as a function of management thresholds and Type I error tolerance (α). Higher thresholds required more samples than lower thresholds because populations were more heterogeneous at higher mean Se levels. For instance, to assess a management threshold of 4 mg Se/kg, a sample of eight fish could detect an increase of approximately 1 mg Se/kg with 80% power (given α = 0.05), but this sample size would be unable to detect such an increase from a management threshold of 8 mg Se/kg with more than a coin-flip probability. Increasing α decreased sample size requirements to detect above-threshold mean Se concentrations with 80% power. For instance, at an α-level of 0.05, an 8-fish sample could detect an increase of approximately 2 units above a threshold of 8 mg Se/kg with 80% power, but when α was relaxed to 0.2, this sample size was more sensitive to increasing mean Se concentrations, allowing detection of an increase of approximately 1.2 units with equivalent power. Combining individuals into 2- and 4-fish composite samples for laboratory analysis did not decrease power because the reduced number of laboratory samples was compensated for by increased precision of composites for estimating mean conditions. However, low sample sizes (<5 fish) did not achieve 80% power to detect near-threshold values (i.e., <1 mg Se/kg) under any scenario we evaluated. This analysis can assist the sampling design and interpretation of Se assessments from fish tissue by accounting for natural variation in stream fish populations.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management↗

USGS2007

Introduction to Regional Geology, Tectonics, and Metallogenesis of Northeast Asia

Purpose This introduction presents an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia. The major purposes are to provide a relatively short summary of these features for readers who are unfamiliar with Northeast Asia; a general scientific introduction for the succeeding chapters of this volume; and an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis employed for Northeast Asia. The introduction also describes how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including synthesis of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit refinement of mineral deposit models and deposit genesis; improvement of assessments of undiscovered mineral resources as part of quantitative mineral resource assessment studies; land-use and mineral exploration planning; improvement of interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts; and suggestions for new research. The compilation, synthesis, description, and interpretation of metallogenesis and tectonics of major regions, such as Northeast Asia (Eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (Russian Far East, Alaska, and Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology. The methodology includes: (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 the determination of mineral deposit models, and 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 of the region; (5) compilation of a series of maps of metallogenic belts constructed on the regional geologic base map; and (6) formulation of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis in this introduction is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that were led by the U.S. Geological Survey. These studies have produced two broad types of publications. One type is a series of regional geologic, mineral deposit, and metallogenic belt maps and companion descriptions for the regions. Examples of major publications of this type are Obolenskiy and others (2003a, b, 2004), Parfenov and others (2003, 2004a, b), Nokleberg and others (2004), Rodionov and others (2004), and Naumova and others (2006). The other type is a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of these same regions. Examples of major publications of this type are Rodionov and others (2004), Nokleberg and others (2000, 2004, 2005), and Naumova and others (2006). The Northeast Asia project area consists of eastern Russia (most of Siberia and most of the Russian Far East), Mongolia, Northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. This area is approximately bounded by 30 to 82? N. latitude and 75 to 144? E. longitude. The major participating agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia), VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Mongolian National University, Jilin University, Changchun, China, the China Geological Survey, the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources, the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST, University of Texas Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Northeast Asia project extends and build on 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 that was conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,

Open-File Report↗

USGS2010

Water-the Nation's Fundamental Climate Issue A White Paper on the U.S. Geological Survey Role and Capabilities

Of all the potential threats posed by climatic variability and change, those associated with water resources are arguably the most consequential for both society and the environment (Waggoner, 1990). Climatic effects on agriculture, aquatic ecosystems, energy, and industry are strongly influenced by climatic effects on water. Thus, understanding changes in the distribution, quantity and quality of, and demand for water in response to climate variability and change is essential to planning for and adapting to future climatic conditions. A central role of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with respect to climate is to document environmental changes currently underway and to develop improved capabilities to predict future changes. Indeed, a centerpiece of the USGS role is a new Climate Effects Network of monitoring sites. Measuring the climatic effects on water is an essential component of such a network (along with corresponding effects on terrestrial ecosystems). The USGS needs to be unambiguous in communicating with its customers and stakeholders, and with officials at the Department of the Interior, that although modeling future impacts of climate change is important, there is no more critical role for the USGS in climate change science than that of measuring and describing the changes that are currently underway. One of the best statements of that mission comes from a short paper by Ralph Keeling (2008) that describes the inspiration and the challenges faced by David Keeling in operating the all-important Mauna Loa Observatory over a period of more than four decades. Ralph Keeling stated: 'The only way to figure out what is happening to our planet is to measure it, and this means tracking changes decade after decade and poring over the records.' There are three key ideas that are important to the USGS in the above-mentioned sentence. First, to understand what is happening requires measurement. While models are a tool for learning and testing our understanding, they are not a substitute for observations. The second key idea is that measurement needs to be done over a period of many decades. When viewing hydrologic records over time scales of a few years to a few decades, trends commonly appear. However, when viewed in the context of many decades to centuries, these short-term trends are recognized as being part of much longer term oscillations. Thus, while we might want to initiate monitoring of important aspects of our natural resources, the data that will prove to be most useful in the next few years are those records that already have long-term continuity. USGS streamflow and groundwater level data are excellent examples of such long-term records. These measured data span many decades, follow standard protocols for collection and quality assurance, and are stored in a database that provides access to the full period of record. The third point from the Keeling quote relates to the notion of ?poring over the records.? Important trends will not generally jump off the computer screen at us. Thoughtful analyses are required to get past a number of important but confounding influences in the record, such as the role of seasonal variation, changes in water management, or influences of quasi-periodic phenomena, such as El Ni?o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). No organization is better situated to pore over the records than the USGS because USGS scientists know the data, quality-assure the data, understand the factors that influence the data, and have the ancillary information on the watersheds within which the data are collected. To fulfill the USGS role in understanding climatic variability and change, we need to continually improve and strengthen two of our key capabilities: (1) preserving continuity of long-term water data collection and (2) analyzing and interpreting water data to determine how the Nation's water resources are changing. Understanding change in water resources

Circular↗

USGS2015

Hydrologic record extension of water-level data in the Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN), 1991-99

The real-time Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) has been established to support a variety of scientific and water management purposes. The expansiveness of the Everglades, limited number of gaging stations, and extreme sensitivity of the ecosystem to small changes in water depth have created a need for accurate water-level and water-depth maps. The EDEN water-surface elevation model uses data from approximately 240 gages in the Everglades to create daily continuous interpolations of the water-surface elevation and water depth for the freshwater portion of the Everglades from 2000 to the present (2014). These maps provide hydrologic data previously unavailable for assessing biological and ecological studies. Ecologists working in the Everglades expressed a need to the EDEN project team for daily EDEN water-level surfaces from 1990 to 1999. The additional 10 years of surfaces will provide ecologists and resource managers with two decades (1991–2011) of surfaces to analyze hydrologic dynamics. Before 2000, many of the EDEN gages used to generate water surfaces were not in operation. These datasets were extended to provide estimations of hydrologic time-series histories. The general approach to the record extension (hindcasts) was to (1) create a database of available data from 1990 to the present; (2) use dynamic cluster analysis to group stations with similar hydrologic behaviors for subareas of the Everglades with a large number of stations; (3) use results from the cluster analysis to select candidate explanatory variables; (4) develop linear regression or artificial neural network models to extend water-level records; and (5) evaluate record extensions by using model performance statistics and comparison of water-surface maps for similar hydrologic conditions for the hindcasted period (1991–99) and measured period (2000–11). To hindcast and fill data records, 214 empirical models were developed—189 are linear regression models and 25 are artificial neural network models. The coefficient of determination (R 2 ) for 163 of the models is greater than 0.80 and the median percent model error (root mean square error divided by the range of the measured data) is 5 percent. To evaluate the performance of the hindcast models as a group, contour maps of modeled water-level surfaces at 2-centimeter (cm) intervals were generated using the hindcasted data. The 2-cm contour maps were examined for selected days to verify that water surfaces from the EDEN model are consistent with the input data. The biweekly 2-cm contour maps did show a higher number of issues during days in 1990 as compared to days after 1990. May 1990 had the lowest water levels in the Everglades of the 21-year dataset used for the hindcasting study. To hindcast these record low conditions in 1990, many of the hindcast models would require large extrapolations beyond the range of the predictive quality of the models. For these reasons, it was decided to limit the hindcasted data to the period January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1999. Overall, the hindcasted and gap-filled data are assumed to provide reasonable estimates of station-specific water-level data for an extended historical period to inform research and natural resource management in the Everglades.

Florida↗

USGS2012

Well network installation and hydrogeologic data collection, Assateague Island National Seashore, Worcester County, Maryland, 2010

The U.S. Geological Survey, as part of its Climate and Land Use Change Research and Development Program, is conducting a multi-year investigation to assess potential impacts on the natural resources of Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland that may result from changes in the hydrologic system in response to projected sea-level rise. As part of this effort, 26 monitoring wells were installed in pairs along five east-west trending transects. Each of the five transects has between two and four pairs of wells, consisting of a shallow well and a deeper well. The shallow well typically was installed several feet below the water table—usually in freshwater about 10 feet below land surface (ft bls)—to measure water-level changes in the shallow groundwater system. The deeper well was installed below the anticipated depth to the freshwater-saltwater interface—usually in saltwater about 45 to 55 ft bls—for the purpose of borehole geophysical logging to characterize local differences in lithology and salinity and to monitor tidal influences on groundwater. Four of the 13 shallow wells and 5 of the 13 deeper wells were instrumented with water-level recorders that collected water-level data at 15-minute intervals from August 12 through September 28, 2010. Data collected from these instrumented wells were compared with tide data collected north of Assateague Island at the Ocean City Inlet tide gage, and precipitation data collected by National Park Service staff on Assateague Island. These data indicate that precipitation events coupled with changes in ambient sea level had the largest effect on groundwater levels in all monitoring wells near the Atlantic Ocean and Chincoteague and Sinepuxent Bays, whereas precipitation events alone had the greatest impact on shallow groundwater levels near the center of the island. Daily and bi-monthly tidal cycles appeared to have minimal influence on groundwater levels throughout the island and the water-level changes that were observed appeared to vary among well sites, indicating that changes in lithology and salinity also may affect the response of water levels in the shallow and deeper groundwater systems throughout the island. Borehole geophysical logs were collected at each of the 13 deeper wells along the 5 transects. Electromagnetic induction logs were collected to identify changes in lithology; determine the approximate location of the freshwater-saltwater interface; and characterize the distribution of fresh and brackish water in the shallow aquifer, and the geometry of the fresh groundwater lens beneath the island. Natural gamma logs were collected to provide information on the geologic framework of the island including the presence and thickness of finer-grained deposits found in the subsurface throughout the island during previous investigations. Results of this investigation show the need for collection of continuous water-level data in both the shallow and deeper parts of the flow system and electromagnetic induction and natural gamma geophysical logging data to better understand the response of this groundwater system to changes in precipitation and tidal forcing. Hydrologic data collected as part of this investigation will serve as the foundation for the development of numerical flow models to assess the potential effects of climate change on the coastal groundwater system of Assateague Island.

Maryl↗