Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Scientific Papers”

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

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

At least 667 records · Page 37Linked to original sources
USGS2009

Estimated use of water in Alabama in 2005

Water use in Alabama was about 9,958 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) during 2005. Estimates of withdrawals by source indicate that total surface-water withdrawals were about 9,467 Mgal/d (95 percent of the total withdrawals) and the remaining 491 Mgal/d (5 percent) were from ground water. More surface water than ground water was withdrawn for all categories except aquaculture, mining, and self-supplied residential. During 2005, estimated withdrawals by category and in descending order were: thermoelectric power, 8,274 Mgal/d; public supply, 802 Mgal/d; self-supplied industrial, 550 Mgal/d; irrigation, 161 Mgal/d; aquaculture, 75 Mgal/d; self-supplied residential, 39 Mgal/d; livestock, 28 Mgal/d; and mining, 28 Mgal/d. During 2005, about 83 percent of the water used in Alabama was for thermoelectric power to generate about 114,144 net gigawatt-hours of energy. Almost all of the thermoelectric-power water use (about 8,274 Mgal/d) was from surface water; nearly all of the water (98 percent) was used for once-through cooling, and most of that water was returned to a surface-water source. Public-supply and self-supplied residential withdrawals were about 8 percent of total water withdrawals and about 50 percent of total water withdrawals for all categories excluding thermoelectric power. The combined public-supply and self-supplied residential ground-water withdrawals were about 64 percent of total ground-water withdrawals for Alabama. Public-supply deliveries to residential customers were 41 percent of total public-supply withdrawals, or about 326 Mgal/d; combined industrial and commercial deliveries were 44 percent, or about 355 Mgal/d; and public use and losses accounted for the remaining 15 percent, or about 120 Mgal/d. Self-supplied industrial (550 Mgal/d) and mining (28 Mgal/d) withdrawals were about 6 percent of total water withdrawals and about 33 percent of total water withdrawals for all categories excluding thermoelectric power. Paper and allied products accounted for the largest self-supplied industrial surface-water withdrawals (301 Mgal/d), and chemical and allied products (12 Mgal/d) accounted for the largest ground-water withdrawals. Water withdrawals for the agricultural sector-irrigation (161 Mgal/d), aquaculture (75 Mgal/d), and livestock (28 Mgal/d)-were about 3 percent of total withdrawals and about 16 percent of total withdrawals for all categories excluding thermoelectric power. About 135,800 acres of crops, nursery stock, sod, and golf courses were irrigated in 2005. About 97 percent of these acres were irrigated with sprinkler irrigation systems. The statewide average application rate was 1.33 acre-feet per acre per year. The highest application rate, 3.74 acre-feet per acre per year, was for nursery stock. The largest total water withdrawals by county occurred in Limestone, Jackson, Colbert, and Mobile Counties, and were 60 percent of the total; these withdrawals primarily were used to meet the cooling needs at thermoelectric-power plants. Excluding thermoelectric power, the largest withdrawals by county were in Morgan, Mobile, Jefferson, Talladega, and Madison Counties. Water use was estimated at the hydrologic subbasin level for all categories except aquaculture, mining, and self-supplied residential. The Middle Tennessee-Elk subregion accounted for about 53 percent (5,185 Mgal/d) of the estimated total withdrawals by subbasin of 9,816 Mgal/d. About 92 percent of the water use in the Middle Tennessee-Elk subregion was for thermoelectric power, and more than 99 percent of the water was from surface water. Gross per capita use for all offstream uses was 2,185 gallons per day (gal/d) for the estimated 4.56 million Alabama residents in 2005. Public-supply per capita use was 199 gal/d for the estimated 4.04 million residents served by a public supplier; public-supplied residential per capita use was 81 gal/d. Self-supplied residential per capita use was 75 gal/d for the estimated 0.52 million self-supplied residential population. Average residential per capita use was 80 gal/d. Total water withdrawals decreased less than 1 percent from 9,990 Mgal/d in 2000 to 9,958 Mgal/d in 2005. Surface-water withdrawals decreased less than 5 percent from 9,950 Mgal/d in 2000 to 9,467 Mgal/d in 2005. In contrast, ground-water withdrawals increased about 12 percent from 440 Mgal/d in 2000 to 491 Mgal/d in 2005. By category, increases in irrigation (118 Mgal/d, about 274 percent), thermoelectric power (84 Mgal/d, about 1 percent), and aquaculture (65 Mgal/d, 620 percent) were offset by declines in self-supplied industrial (283 Mgal/d, about 34 percent), self-supplied residential (40 Mgal/d, about 50 percent); and public supply (32 Mgal/d, about 4 percent) from 2000 to 2005. Water use for livestock and mining was not estimated in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2012

The Novarupta-Katmai eruption of 1912 - largest eruption of the twentieth century; centennial perspectives

The explosive outburst at Novarupta (Alaska) in June 1912 was the 20th century's most voluminous volcanic eruption. Marking its centennial, we illustrate and document the complex eruptive sequence, which was long misattributed to nearby Mount Katmai, and how its deposits have provided key insights about volcanic and magmatic processes. It was one of the few historical eruptions to produce a collapsed caldera, voluminous high-silica rhyolite, wide compositional zonation (51-78 percent SiO 2 ), banded pumice, welded tuff, and an aerosol/dust veil that depressed global temperature measurably. It emplaced a series of ash flows that filled what became the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes, sustaining high-temperature metal-transporting fumaroles for a decade. Three explosive episodes spanned ~60 hours, depositing ~17 km 3 of fallout and 11±2 km 3 of ignimbrite, together representing ~13.5 km 3 of zoned magma. No observers were nearby and no aircraft were in Alaska, and so the eruption narrative was assembled from scattered villages and ship reports. Because volcanology was in its infancy and the early investigations (1915-23) were conducted under arduous expeditionary conditions, many provocative misapprehensions attended reports based on those studies. Fieldwork at Katmai was not resumed until 1953, but, since then, global advances in physical volcanology and chemical petrology have gone hand in hand with studies of the 1912 deposits, clarifying the sequence of events and processes and turning the eruption into one of the best studied in the world. To provide perspective on this century-long evolution, we describe the geologic and geographic setting of the eruption - in a remote, sparsely inhabited wilderness; we review the cultural and scientific contexts at the time of the eruption and early expeditions; and we compile a chronology of the many Katmai investigations since 1912. Products of the eruption are described in detail, including eight layers of regionwide fallout, nine packages of ash flows, and three lava domes that followed the explosive pyroclastic episodes. Changes in the proportions of coerupting rhyolite, dacite, and andesite pumice documented for the fallout and ash-flow successions, which are locally interbedded, permit close correlation of those synchronously emplaced sequences and their varied facies. Petrological correlation of the sequence of deposits near Novarupta with ash layers at Kodiak village, 170 km downwind, where three episodes of ashfall were recorded (to the hour), provides key constraints on timing of the eruptive events. Syneruptive collapse of a kilometer-deep caldera took place atop Mount Katmai, a stratovolcano centered 10 km east of the eruption site at Novarupta, owing to drainage of magma from beneath the Katmai edifice. Correlation of ~50 earthquakes recorded at distant seismic stations (including 14 shocks of magnitude 6.0 to 7.0) to fitful caldera collapse provides further constraints on eruption timing, because layers of nonjuvenile breccia and mud ejected from Mount Katmai during collapse pulses are intercalated with the pumice-fall layers from Novarupta. Structure of the Novarupta vent, a 2-km-wide depression backfilled by welded tuff and inferred to be funnel-shaped at depth, is described in detail, as is the 4-km-wide caldera at Mount Katmai. Discussions are also provided concerning: (1) the impact on global climate of the great mass of sulfur-poor but halogen-rich aerosol ejected into the atmosphere by the rhyolite-dominated eruption; (2) chemical and mineralogical effects of the fumarolic acid gases; and (3) the timing of several syneruptive landslide deposits sandwiched within the pumice-fall sequence. Secondary posteruption phenomena characterized include impounded lakes, ash-rich debris flows, phreatic craters on the ignimbrite sheet, responses of glaciers to the fallout blanket and to beheading by caldera collapse, growth of new glaciers inside the caldera, and gradual filling of the caldera lake. Structure, composition, and ages of the several andesite-dacite stratovolcanoes, closely clustered near Novarupta, all of which remain fumarolically and seismically active, are summarized. But among them only Mount Katmai extends compositionally to include basalt and rhyolite. The petrological affinities of 1912 magmas erupted at Novarupta with pre-1912 Katmai lavas are outlined, and various chemical, mineralogical, isotopic, and experimental data are assembled to construct a model of preeruptive magma storage beneath Mount Katmai. The monograph concludes by comparing the 1912 eruption with several other well-studied large explosive eruptions, 14 of them historical and 9 prehistoric. Finally, we retrospectively review the historical difficulties in understanding what had actually taken place at Katmai in 1912 and the century of progress in volcano science that has allowed most of it to be figured out.

Alaska;British Columbia;Washington;Yukon↗
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↗
USGS2005

Vegetation changes over 12 years in ungrazed and grazed Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands in the central and southern plains

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) established under the 1985 Food Security Act has the fundamental objectives of jointly providing economic support to segments of the agricultural community and conservation of natural resources (Osborn, 1997; Heard and others, 2000). Although soil loss on highly erodable lands was the principal natural resource conservation issue addressed in the 1985 CRP, improving water quality and wildlife habitat both became important considerations as the program evolved (Farmer and others, 1988). For example, Best and others (1997) found that production of young birds on CRP fields in the Midwest was ≥15 times the production on row-crop fields because of improved habitat. The increasing importance of wildlife habitat is reflected in continuing refinement of the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to quantify the potential benefits of enrolling lands in CRP (Osborn, 1997; Ribaudo and others, 2001). The refinements reflect input furnished by federal, state, and non-government organizations seeking greater wildlife habitat quality on CRP lands (Roseberry and David, 1994; Hughes and others, 1995; Millenbah and others, 1996; Patterson and Best, 1996; Rodgers, 1999; Allen and others, 2001). Refinement in the EBI has changed the types of grasses planted on newly enrolled land. In early CRP signups (1 through 11), 71% of new grassland acres were planted to introduced grasses and legumes [Conservation Practice (CP) 1] while 29% of the acres were planted to native grasses (CP2) (Osborn and others, 1992). By the 27th signup in July 2004, over 34.8 million acres (14 million ha) were enrolled in the CRP. More than 73% of these lands were planted to various mixtures of introduced (CP1) or native (CP2) grasses for a minimal contract period of 10 years (USDA, 2004). Continuation of grass plantings under the 2002 Farm Bill may result in CRP lands furnishing grass dominated cover for 20 or more consecutive years. The species of grass established in seeded grasslands can have a major influence on the potential quality of wildlife habitat where vegetation is maintained over a multi-year period. Different species of grass may have comparable abilities to alleviate soil erosion but furnish dissimilar qualities of wildlife habitat (fig. 1). For example, smooth brome, an introduced cool-season grass (grass species and scientific names are presented in table 1), is highly valued for its erosion control and forage attributes (Casler and Carlson, 1995). Switchgrass, a native warm-season grass, also is valued for its soil and water conservation qualities (Moser and Vogel, 1995) but provides greater benefits for some species of wildlife (Clubine, 1995). The quality of nesting and winter cover for ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) furnished by smooth brome on northeastern Colorado CRP lands is inferior to that provided by the taller, more robust switchgrass (Allen, 1994). Characteristics of the agricultural landscape surrounding individual CRP fields also play a role in the wildlife habitat potential of CRP plantings (Weber and others, 2002; Nusser and others, 2004). of native and seeded grasslands change in response to the presence (and absence) of physical disturbances such as fire, grazing, tillage, and haying (Hobbs and Huenneke, 1992; Millenbah and others, 1996; Allen and others, 2001; Renfrew and Ribic, 2001; Swengel and Swengel, 2001). The perpetuation of diversity in species composition and vegetation structure following disturbance sustains desirable habitat for a variety of grassland-dependent wildlife (Hall and Willig, 1994; Barnes and others, 1995; King and Savidge, 1995; Granfors and others, 1996; Herkert and others, 1996; Kurzejeski, 1996; Patterson and Best, 1996; Klute and others, 1997). Undisturbed grasslands have lower grass and forb species diversity, greater amounts of dead plant material, decreased as well as seasonally delayed productivity, and diminished structural diversity of vegetation (Peet and others, 1975; Rice and Parenti, 1978; Butler and Briske, 1988; Campa and Winterstein, 1992). Recommendations for the timing of disturbance to increase grass and forb species diversity range from 3 to 8 years following establishment of seeded grasslands in the northern Great Plains and Midwest (Duebbert and others, 1981; Higgens, 1987; Millenbah and others, 1996). The management interval, however, is affected by climatic conditions, soils, grass species, and management history of the individual stand. We quantified changes in vegetation structure and species composition across the typical 10-year contract period in undisturbed southern and central Great Plains CRP fields (fig. 2) planted to introduced and native grasses. In addition, we compared changes in vegetation in fields grazed during the emergency release of 1996 by comparing conditions prior to grazing and two and four years post grazing relative to changes in similar fields that were not grazed. Documentation of long-term changes in vegetation structure and composition for fields planted to common grass seed mixtures across a wide range of environmental conditions provides information to improve long-term wildlife habitat potential, guide program administration, and define management practices that yield economic benefits to operators while still meeting wildlife and conservation objectives. Emergency grazing provisions of the CRP are controversial. Although grazing can alter vegetative characteristics and reduce habitat quality in the short-term (Temple and others, 1999), periodic disturbance may be necessary to maintain habitat quality, and more information is needed assessing long-term effects of emergency grazing on vegetative structure and species composition.

Conference 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↗
USGS2008

Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality investigation. 25. Summary of results and baseline and pre-mining ground-water geochemistry, Red River Valley, Taos County, New Mexico, 2001-2005

Active and inactive mine sites are challenging to remediate because of their complexity and scale. Regulations meant to achieve environmental restoration at mine sites are equally challenging to apply for the same reasons. The goal of environmental restoration should be to restore contaminated mine sites, as closely as possible, to pre-mining conditions. Metalliferous mine sites in the Western United States are commonly located in hydrothermally altered and mineralized terrain in which pre-mining concentrations of metals were already anomalously high. Typically, those pre-mining concentrations were not measured, but sometimes they can be reconstructed using scientific inference. Molycorp?s Questa molybdenum mine in the Red River Valley, northern New Mexico, is located near the margin of the Questa caldera in a highly mineralized region. The State of New Mexico requires that ground-water quality standards be met on closure unless it can be shown that potential contaminant concentrations were higher than the standards before mining. No ground water at the mine site had been chemically analyzed before mining. The aim of this investigation, in cooperation with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), is to infer the pre-mining ground-water quality by an examination of the geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical controls on ground-water quality in a nearby, or proximal, analog site in the Straight Creek drainage basin. Twenty-seven reports contain details of investigations on the geological, hydrological, and geochemical characteristics of the Red River Valley that are summarized in this report. These studies include mapping of surface mineralogy by Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometry (AVIRIS); compilations of historical surface- and ground- water quality data; synoptic/tracer studies with mass loading and temporal water-quality trends of the Red River; reaction-transport modeling of the Red River; environmental geology of the Red River Valley; lake-sediment chemistry; geomorphology and its effect on ground-water flow; geophysical studies on depth to ground-water table and depth to bedrock; bedrock fractures and their potential influence on ground-water flow; leaching studies of scars and waste-rock piles; mineralogy and mineral chemistry and their effect on ground-water quality; debris-flow hazards; hydrology and water balance for the Red River Valley; ground-water geochemistry of selected wells undisturbed by mining in the Red River Valley; and quality assurance and quality control of water analyses. Studies aimed specifically at the Straight Creek natural-analog site include electrical surveys; high-resolution seismic survey; age-dating with tritium/helium; water budget; ground-water hydrology and geochemistry; and comparison of mineralogy and lithology to that of the mine site. The highly mineralized and hydrothermally altered volcanic rocks of the Red River Valley contain several percent pyrite in the quartz-sericite-pyrite (QSP) alteration zone, which weather naturally to acid-sulfate surface and ground waters that discharge to the Red River. Weathering of waste-rock piles containing pyrite also contributes acid water that eventually discharges into the Red River. These acid discharges are neutralized by circumneutral-pH, carbonate-buffered surface and ground waters of the Red River. The buffering capacity of the Red River, however, decreases from the town of Red River to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station near Questa. During short, but intense, storm events, the buffering capacity is exceeded and the river becomes acid from the rapid flushing of acidic materials from natural scar areas. The lithology, mineralogy, elevation, and hydrology of the Straight Creek proximal analog site were found to closely approximate those of the mine site with the exception of the mine site?s Sulphur Gulch catchment. Sulphur Gulch contains three subcatchments?upper Sulphur Gulch, Blind Gulch, and Spring Gulc

New Mexico↗
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

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↗
USGS2018

Columbia River Basin dreissenid mussel monitoring forum workshop

To address actions identified in the Department of Interior’s “Safeguarding the West” strategy, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) and US Geological Survey (USGS) convened 43 invasive species coordinators and scientific experts June 5-6, 2018 in Portland, Oregon to assess the status of dreissenid monitoring efforts in the Columbia River Basin (CRB); identify key strengths and weaknesses of existing collaborative efforts to monitor for dreissenids; identify priority monitoring gaps foundational to dreissenid prevention efforts; and achieve consensus on a set of strategies to address those gaps and maintain a strong monitoring collaborative and framework moving forward. Prior to the workshop, two webinars were conducted to summarize how states and provinces are estimating and using metrics that describe dreissenid mussel introduction (i.e., the risk of mussels being introduced into a waterbody) and establishment (i.e., the risk of a mussel population becoming established after an introduction event). The goal of the webinars was to provide context to discussions at the Columbia River Basin Dreissenid Mussel Monitoring Forum. As part of the webinars expert practitioners, gave presentations that summarized the origins and basis for metrics typically used to characterize invasive species invasion risk. During the first webinar which was held on May 7, 2018, Dr. Bob McMahon, University of Texas at Arlington gave a presentation discussing factors affecting the establishment of dreissenid mussels. During the second webinar which was held on May 30, 2018, Samuel Fischer and Mark Lewis from the University of Alberta presented information on factors affecting the introduction of mussels. Presentations at the workshop were given to update participants on the status of dreissenid mussel monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. Staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), USGS, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and National Park Service (NPS) gave presentations that described the status of dreissenid mussel monitoring efforts conducted by federal agencies. Participants also heard presentations on the status of other monitoring related efforts. Representatives from the Western Regional Panel and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) presented information about method and protocol standardization coordination activities. Staff from the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy also presented an update on their sampling and resource allocation protocols. The USGS then presented an overview of the evolution and status of dreissenid mussel monitoring in the CRB as well as summary of the results of webinars that addressed facets of dreissenid mussel introduction and establishment risk estimation. To facilitate learning from ongoing efforts that address similar invasive species coordination, monitoring, and research activities, Kelly Baerwaldt, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) presented remotely on the activities of the Asian Carp Coordinating Committee, informing workshop participants of the how the effort formed and is funded, priority goals and activities, as well as key successes and challenges. The meeting culminated with workshop attendees participating in four breakout groups (risk assessment and research, data/lab analysis, monitoring/coordination, and funding) to identify priority key gaps or weaknesses to existing monitoring/coordination efforts as well as identify priority actions or strategies could help address those gaps or weaknesses. The recommended priority actions from each breakout group were compiled into one overall recommendation to build on existing strengths and address weaknesses associated with monitoring for dreissenids in the Columbia River Basin: Using existing infrastructure and datasets, develop a transboundary, interagency, adaptive, coordinated, regional monitoring framework/partnership to ensure optimal resource allocation.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2024

Effective site coefficients for the 2024 International Building Code (IBC)

The U.S. National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), have long been the scientific foundation of seismic design guidelines and have been used to compute design ground motions for construction of new buildings and retrofit of existing buildings in the United States and its territories. The 2018 NSHM is adopted by the 2024 International Building Code (IBC). Prior to the 2018 NSHM update, hazard calculations were required only at one reference site condition defined by V S30 =760 m/s (where V S30 is the time-averaged shear wave velocity from the surface to a depth of 30 m) and three periods (peak ground acceleration, PGA, and pseudo spectral accelerations at periods of 0.2 and 1 s, S s and S 1 ). Site coefficients, F PGA , F a , and F v , were then defined by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Provisions Update Committee (PUC) in the site-specific procedures of National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions to calculate ground motions for other site classes with different V S30 values at the given periods. The design ground motions at other periods were then estimated using a generic spectral shape that was also defined by the BSSC PUC in NEHRP provisions. In recent years, the engineering community has realized there were deficiencies with the F a and F v site coefficients and the generic spectral shape. To avoid potentially dangerous underestimations of design ground motions for long period structures on soft site conditions in high seismicity regions, the BSSC PUC recommended the use of multi-period response spectra (MPRS) in 2017. As a result, the USGS produced multi-period and multi-V S30 response spectral values in the 2018 NSHM for calculations of design ground motions and the site coefficients F a and F v were eliminated from the 2020 NEHRP Provisions. As these site coefficients were widely used inside and outside of the United States, in this study we back-calculate the “effective” site coefficients F a,eff , and F v,eff by comparing MPRS for various site classes with the MPRS for the reference site condition, and discuss the changes that are observed in the 2024 IBC compared to its previous version in 2021. The effective site coefficients are presented for test site locations and their dependence on various factors including period, ground motion intensity, and regional models are discussed. Ratio maps between the new effective site coefficients and the old ones are then presented for soft site classes and for short and long periods. For soft site classes at short periods, the new effective site coefficients are lower than the old site coefficients for high seismicity regions and higher for low seismicity regions. As it was expected, for soft site classes at long periods and high seismicity regions, the new effective site coefficients are much larger than the old site coefficients without imposing the 50% increase as a penalty that was suggested in the 2021 IBC, whereas they could be much smaller if the 50% increase would have been imposed particularly around New Madrid and Charleston high seismicity regions. For low seismicity regions, the long period effective site coefficients can be smaller or larger by 20% compared to the 2021 IBC coefficients.

Conference 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↗
USGS2010

Introduction, Chapter 1 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
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

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

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

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↗