SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Nature Geoscience”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

USGS2005

Calibration of numerical models for small debris flows in Yosemite Valley, California, USA

This study compares documented debris flow runout distances with numerical simulations in the Yosemite Valley of California, USA, where about 15% of historical events of slope instability can be classified as debris flows and debris slides (Wieczorek and Snyder, 2004). To model debris flows in the Yosemite Valley, we selected six streams with evidence of historical debris flows; three of the debris flow deposits have single channels, and the other three split their pattern in the fan area into two or more channels. From field observations all of the debris flows involved coarse material, with only very small clay content. We applied the one dimensional DAN (Dynamic ANalysis) model (Hungr, 1995) and the two-dimensional FLO2D model (O'Brien et al., 1993) to predict and compare the runout distance and the velocity of the debris flows observed in the study area. As a first step, we calibrated the parameters for the two softwares through the back analysis of three debris- flows channels using a trial-and-error procedure starting with values suggested in the literature. In the second step we applied the selected values to the other channels, in order to evaluate their predictive capabilities. After parameter calibration using three debris flows we obtained results similar to field observations We also obtained a good agreement between the two models for velocities. Both models are strongly influenced by topography: we used the 30 m cell size DTM available for the study area, that is probably not accurate enough for a highly detailed analysis, but it can be sufficient for a first screening. European Geosciences Union ?? 2005 Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences↗

USGS2019

The Appalachian Geo-STEM Camp: Learning about geology through experiential adventure recreation

The inaugural Appalachian Geo-STEM Camp (AGC) was a partnership between West Virginia University (WVU), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey (WVGES). Designed to engage high school students in geoscience-oriented Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) activities through adventure-based outdoor recreation, the inaugural AGC took place in June 2018, with its base operations at the WVU Natural Resources Center (NRC), located northeast of Morgantown, West Virginia. The goals of the AGC are to increase the knowledge of the teenaged campers about the geological formations and biodiversity in the region, to acquaint them with geologic mapping technology used by USGS, WVGES, and WVU, and to foster interest in STEM-based careers. Nine students participated, with a cadre from the USGS, WVGES, and WVU teaching lessons in local geology and ecology. Inaugural-year efforts were focused on development and logistics of the camp and what activities best complimented the STEM research. Post-evaluations by the participants were generally favorable. Year-two goals are to fully develop a curriculum, and conduct a thorough pre-camp and post-camp participant survey to quantify learning objectives and guide the sustainability of the effort.

West Virginia↗

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↗

USGS2023

Near surface sediments introduce low frequency noise into gravity models

3D geologic modeling and mapping often relies on gravity modeling to identify key geologic structures, such as basin depth, fault offset, or fault dip. Such gravity models generally assume either homogeneous or spatially uncorrelated densities within modeled rock bodies and overlying sediments, with average densities typically derived from surface and drill-hole sampling. The noise contributed to the gravity anomaly by these density assumptions is zero in the homogeneous case and typically <200 μGal in the uncorrelated case. Rock bodies and sediments, however, show both a range of densities and spatial correlation of these densities, in both surface and drill-hole samples, and this correlation causes an increase in power in the low frequency content of the resulting gravity anomaly. Spatial correlation of densities can be modeled as a Gaussian random field (GRF), with the random field parameters derived from drill-hole and geologic map data. Data from alluvial fan sediments in southern Nevada indicate correlation lengths of up to 300 m in the vertical dimension and kilometers in the horizontal dimension. The resulting GRF density models show that the noise contributed to the measured gravity anomaly is of low frequency and can be several mGal in amplitude, contradicting the common attribution of lower frequencies to deeper sources. This low-frequency noise increases in power with an increase in sediment thickness. Its presence increases the ambiguity of interpretations of subsurface geologic body shape, such as basin analyses that attempt to quantify concealed basement fault depths, offsets, and dip angles. In the southwestern United States, where basin analyses are important for natural resource applications, such ambiguity increases the uncertainty of subsequent process modeling.

Applied Computing and Geosciences↗

USGS2005

A magnetotelluric study of the sensitivity of an area to seismoelectric signals

During recent years, efforts at better understanding the physical properties of precursory ultra-low frequency pre-seismic electric signals (SES) have been intensified. Experiments show that SES cannot be observed at all points of the Earth's surface but only at certain so-called sensitive sites. Moreover, a sensitive site is capable of collecting SES from only a restricted number of seismic areas (selectivity effect). Tberefore the installation of a permanent station appropriate for SES collection should necessarily be preceded by a pilot study over a broad area and for a long duration. In short, a number of temporary stations are installed and, after the occurrence of several significant earthquakes (EQs) from a given seismic area, the most appropriate (if any) of these temporary stations, in the sense that they happen to collect SES, can be selected as permanent. Such a long experiment constitutes a serious disadvantage in identifying a site as SES sensitive. However, the SES sensitivity of a site should be related to the geoelectric structure of the area that hosts the site as well as the regional geoelectric structure between the station and the seismic focal area. Thus, knowledge of the local and regional geoelectric structure can dramatically reduce the time involved in identifying SES sites. hi this paper the magnetotelluric method is used to investigate the conductivity structure of an area where a permanent SES station is in operation. Although general conclusions cannot be drawn, the area surrounding an SES site near Ioannina, Greece is characterized by: (1) major faults in the vicinity; (2) highly resistive structure flanked by abrupt conductivity contrasts associated with large-scale geologic contacts, and (3) local inhomogeneities in conductivity structure. The above results are consistent with the fact that electric field amplitudes from remotely-generated signals should be appreciably stronger at such sites when compared to neighboring sites. European Geosciences Union ?? 2005 Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences↗

USGS2022

Alaska North Slope terrestrial gas hydrate systems: Insights from scientific drilling

A wealth of information has been accumulated regarding the occurrence of gas hydrates in nature, leading to significant advancements in our understanding of the geologic controls on their occurrence in both the terrestrial and marine settings of the Arctic. Gas hydrate accumulations discovered in the Alaska North Slope have been the focus of several important geoscience and production testing research programs. The Mount Elbert Gas Hydrate Stratigraphic Test Well of 2007 yielded one of the most complete geologic datasets on Arctic gas hydrate systems and important reservoir engineering data. The 2011/2012 field test of the Iġnik Sikumi gas hydrate production test well provided important insight into gas hydrate production technologies, yielding additional information on the petrophysical properties of gas hydrate reservoir systems. The Hydrate-01 Stratigraphic Test Well, drilled late in 2018, confirmed the geologic conditions at an Alaska North Slope drill site that was selected for an extended gas hydrate production test. In 2018, the US Geological Survey used information derived from previous scientific drilling programs to assess the volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas resources at a mean estimate of about 54 trillion cubic feet (~1.5 trillion cubic meters) within the gas hydrates in the North Slope of Alaska. This assessment has shown that the amount of gas stored as gas hydrates in this area is equal to about half of the known volume of conventional natural gas resources in the region.

Alaska↗

USGS2011

Debating complexity in modeling

Complexity in modeling would seem to be an issue of universal importance throughout the geosciences, perhaps throughout all science, if the debate last year among groundwater modelers is any indication. During the discussion the following questions and observations made up the heart of the debate. As scientists trying to understand the natural world, how should our effort be apportioned? We know that the natural world is characterized by complex and interrelated processes. Yet do we need to explicitly incorporate these intricacies to perform the tasks we are charged with? In this era of expanding computer power and development of sophisticated preprocessors and postprocessors, are bigger machines making better models? Put another way, do we understand the natural world better now with all these advancements in our simulation ability? Today the public's patience for long-term projects producing indeterminate results is wearing thin. This increases pressure on the investigator to use the appropriate technology efficiently. On the other hand, bringing scientific results into the legal arena opens up a new dimension to the issue: to the layperson, a tool that includes more of the complexity known to exist in the real world is expected to provide the more scientifically valid answer.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗

USGS2007

Integrated geoscience studies in the Greater Yellowstone Area - Volcanic, tectonic, and hydrothermal processes in the Yellowstone geoecosystem

Yellowstone National Park, rimmed by a crescent of older mountainous terrain, has at its core the Quaternary Yellowstone Plateau, an undulating landscape shaped by forces of volcanism, tectonism, and later glaciation. Its spectacular hydrothermal systems cap this landscape. From 1997 through 2003, the United States Geological Survey Mineral Resources Program conducted a multidisciplinary project of Yellowstone National Park entitled Integrated Geoscience Studies of the Greater Yellowstone Area, building on a 130-year foundation of extensive field studies (including the Hayden survey of 1871, the Hague surveys of the 1880s through 1896, the studies of Iddings, Allen, and Day during the 1920s, and NASA-supported studies starting in the 1970s—now summarized in USGS Professional Paper 729 A through G) in this geologically dynamic terrain. The project applied a broad range of scientific disciplines and state-of-the-art technologies targeted to improve stewardship of the unique natural resources of Yellowstone and enable the National Park Service to effectively manage resources, protect park visitors from geologic hazards, and better educate the public on geologic processes and resources. This project combined a variety of data sets in characterizing the surficial and subsurface chemistry, mineralogy, geology, geophysics, and hydrothermal systems in various parts of the park. The sixteen chapters presented herein in USGS Professional Paper 1717, Integrated Geoscience Studies in the Greater Yellowstone Area—Volcanic, Tectonic, and Hydrothermal Processes in the Yellowstone Geoecosystem , can be divided into four major topical areas: (1) geologic studies, (2) Yellowstone Lake studies, (3) geochemical studies, and (4) geophysical studies. The geologic studies include a paper by Ken Pierce and others on the influence of the Yellowstone hotspot on landscape formation, the ecological effects of the hotspot, and the human experience and human geography of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem as influenced by the Yellowstone hotspot. Another paper by Paul Carrara describes the recent movement of a large landslide block dated by tree-ring analyses in the Tower Falls area. The section under Yellowstone Lake studies begins with a classic paper by J. David Love and others on ancestral Lake Yellowstone. Other papers in this section include results and interpretation of the high-resolution bathymetric, seismic reflection, and submersible studies by Lisa Morgan and others. Ken Pierce and others describe results from their studies of shorelines along Yellowstone Lake and their interpretation of inflation-deflation cycles, tilting, and faulting in the Yellowstone caldera. The influence of sublacustrine hydrothermal vent fluids on the geochemistry of Yellowstone Lake is described by Laurie Balistrieri and others. In Pat Shanks and others’ chapter, hydrothermal reactions, stable-isotope systematics, sinter deposition, and spire formation are related to the geochemistry of sublacustrine hydrothermal deposits in Yellowstone Lake. The geochemical studies section considers park-wide geochemical systems in Yellowstone National Park. In Bob Rye and Alfred Truesdell’s paper, the question of recharge to the deep thermal reservoir underlying the geysers and hot springs of Yellowstone National Park is discussed. Irving Friedman and Dan Norton report on the chloride flux emissions from Yellowstone in their paper questioning whether Yellowstone is losing its steam. Wildlife issues as addressed by examining trace-element and stable-isotope geochemistry are discussed in a chapter by Maurice Chaffee and others. In another chapter by Chaffee and others, natural and anthropogenic anomalies and their potential impact on the environment using geochemistry is reported. Pam Gemery-Hill and others present geochemical data for selected rivers, lake waters, hydrothermal vents, and subaerial geysers for the time interval of 1996–2004. The life cycle of gold deposits near the northeast corner of the park is discussed by Brad Van Gosen. Under the geophysical studies segment, Ray Kokaly and others use AVIRIS (Airborne Visible and Infrared Spectroscopy) data to map vegetation cover and microbial communities in Yellowstone National Park. Eric Livo and others report their results using AVIRIS data on hydrothermally altered rock and hot-spring deposits. In his final paper following a half century of scientific research, Irving Friedman presents data on monitoring changes in geothermal activity at Norris Geyser Basin using satellite telemetry. These papers summarize a near-decade-long effort by the USGS from the late 1990s to mid-2000s. In 2001, the USGS in cooperation with the National Park Service (Yellowstone National Park) and the University of Utah established the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, the 5th volcano observatory in the United States.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2025

Statistical approaches for modeling correlated grade and tonnage distributions and applications for mineral resource assessments

Correlations between grade and tonnage exist in mineral resource data compiled from published reports, but they are not always addressed during quantitative assessment of undiscovered mineral resources. Failure to account for correlated grade and tonnage distributions can result in geologically unrealistic assessment results. Current software tools simulate univariate ore tonnage and multivariate resource grades of undiscovered deposits independently. As a result, analysts are forced to rely on ad-hoc solutions to minimize the correlation issues by: 1) creating subsets of data with restricted criteria; 2) truncating grade and tonnage distributions; and 3) testing model robustness using exploratory data analysis. While these methods represent pragmatic solutions, the statistical solutions presented here provide additional options to address real correlations in grade and tonnage data used for mineral resource assessments. We present a modified version of the MapMark4 package in R that introduces two alternatives for modeling grade and tonnage distributions, consisting of a multivariate solution that accounts for correlations between ore tonnage and metal grades and an empirical solution that utilizes simple random sampling with replacement to reproduce coupled grades and tonnages from the input data. We present simulations for contained ore and metal for three case studies representing tungsten skarn, komatiite-hosted nickel, and sediment-hosted carbonate amagmatic zinc-lead (Mississippi Valley-type) deposits. Employing the methods presented here yields quantitative mineral resource assessment results that more closely reflect the empirical distributions of grades and tonnages observed in nature and expands the applicability of these tools for ongoing critical mineral resource assessments.

Applied Computing and Geosciences↗

USGS2010

Metallogenesis and Tectonics of Northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗

USGS2010

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↗