SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Reviews in Economic Geology”

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.

132 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

USGS2020

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from 2015 to 2019

The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter GRSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” was in part due to a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. The first GRSG literature summary was published early in 2018. Here we provide an update to that document by adding summaries of articles published between January 6, 2018 and October 2, 2019. To identify articles and reports published about GRSG, we first conducted a structured search of three reference databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the search term “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by (1) removing duplicates, (2) excluding products that were not published as research or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) retaining only those products for which GRSG or their habitat was a research focus. We summarized the contents of each product by using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assessed the content of each product relevant to a list of 31 management topics. These topics include GRSG biology and habitat characteristics along with potential management actions, land uses, and environmental factors related to GRSG management and conservation. We also noted which articles/reports created new geospatial data. Our original search, conducted on January 7, 2018, and the application of our criteria, resulted in the inclusion of 169 published products (2 of these products were published corrections to journal articles). This update adds summaries of 69 products published between then and October 2, 2019. The management topics most commonly addressed were GRSG behavior or demographics and GRSG habitat selection or habitat characteristics at broad or site scales. Few products addressed captive breeding, recreation, wild horses and burros, and range management structures (including fences). The management topics with the largest increase in representation between the 2018 GRSG literature summary and this update were GRSG survival and GRSG population estimates or targets, which were each addressed in 16 percent of products in the original literature summary document, but were addressed in 30 and 33 percent, respectively, of newly summarized products. Topics with the largest declines in representation were conifer expansion, - 17 to 10 percent, and new geospatial data, -31 to 21 percent. We include in this annotated bibliography the full citation, Digital Object Identifier (DOI), product summary, and management topics addressed by each product. The online version of this bibliography (https://apps.usgs.gov/gsgbib/index.php) is searchable by topic and location and includes links to journal landing pages for each original publication. A substantial body of literature has been compiled on research explicitly related to the conservation, management, monitoring, and assessment of GRSG. These studies may inform planning and management actions that seek to balance conservation, economic, and social objectives and manage diverse resource uses and values across the western United States. The review process for this product included requesting input on each summary from one or more authors of the original peer-reviewed article or report and a formal review of the entire document by three independent reviewers for the original document and by two independent reviewers for the updated document and, subsequently, the USGS Bureau Approving Official. This process is consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mont↗

USGS2018

A practical primer on geostatistics

Introduction The Challenge —Most geological phenomena are extraordinarily complex in their interrelationships and vast in their geographical extension. Ordinarily, engineers and geoscientists are faced with corporate or scientific requirements to properly prepare geological models with measurements involving a small fraction of the entire area or volume of interest. Exact description of a system such as an oil reservoir is neither feasible nor economically possible. The results are necessarily uncertain. Note that the uncertainty is not an intrinsic property of the systems; it is the result of incomplete knowledge by the observer. The Aim of Geostatistics —The main objective of geostatistics is the characterization of spatial systems that are incompletely known, systems that are common in geology. A key difference from classical statistics is that geostatistics uses the sampling location of every measurement. Unless the measurements show spatial correlation, the application of geostatistics is pointless. Ordinarily the need for additional knowledge goes beyond a few points, which explains the display of results graphically as fishnet plots, block diagrams, and maps. Geostatistical Methods —Geostatistics is a collection of numerical techniques for the characterization of spatial attributes using primarily two tools: probabilistic models, which are used for spatial data in a manner similar to the way in which time-series analysis characterizes temporal data, or pattern recognition techniques. The probabilistic models are used as a way to handle uncertainty in results away from sampling locations, making a radical departure from alternative approaches like inverse distance estimation methods. Differences with Time Series —On dealing with time-series analysis, users frequently concentrate their attention on extrapolations for making forecasts. Although users of geostatistics may be interested in extrapolation, the methods work at their best interpolating. This simple difference has significant methodological implications. Historical Remarks —As a discipline, geostatistics was firmly established in the 1960s by the French engineer Georges Matheron, who was interested in the appraisal of ore reserves in mining. Geostatistics did not develop overnight. Like other disciplines, it has built on previous results, many of which were formulated with different objectives in various fields. Pioneers —Seminal ideas conceptually related to what today we call geostatistics or spatial statistics are found in the work of several pioneers, including: 1940s: A.N. Kolmogorov in turbulent flow and N. Wiener in stochastic processing; 1950s: D. Krige in mining; 1960s: B. Mathern in forestry and L.S. Gandin in meteorology Calculations —Serious applications of geostatistics require the use of digital computers. Although for most geostatistical techniques rudimentary implementation from scratch is fairly straightforward, coding programs from scratch is recommended only as part of a practice that may help users to gain a better grasp of the formulations. Software —For professional work, the reader should employ software packages that have been thoroughly tested to handle any sampling scheme, that run as efficiently as possible, and that offer graphic capabilities for the analysis and display of results. This primer employs primarily the package Stanford Geomodeling Software (SGeMS) - recently developed at the Energy Resources Engineering Department at Stanford University - as a way to show how to obtain results practically. This applied side of the primer should not be interpreted as the notes being a manual for the use of SGeMS. The main objective of the primer is to help the reader gain an understanding of the fundamental concepts and tools in geostatistics. Organization of the Primer —The chapters of greatest importance are those covering kriging and simulation. All other materials are peripheral and are included for better comprehension of these main geostatistical modeling tools. The choice of kriging versus simulation is often a big puzzle to the uninitiated, let alone the different variants of both of them. Chapters 14, 18, and 19 are intended to shed light on those subjects. The critical aspect of assessing and modeling spatial correlation is covered in chapter 7. Chapters 2 and 3 review relevant concepts in classical statistics. Course Objectives —This course offers stochastic solutions to common problems in the characterization of complex geological systems. At the end of the course, participants should have: an understanding of the theoretical foundations of geostatistics; a good grasp of its possibilities and limitations; and reasonable familiarity with the SGeMS software, thus opening the possibility of practically applying geostatistics.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1992

Applying the DRASTIC model: A review of county-scale maps

The potential for contamination of ground water has become an issue of great concern to citizens and government alike, especially in the last decade. Numerous methods for assessing ground water vulnerability to contamination have been proposed and used. These methods include field-scale deterministic models that predict the rate of migration and fate of specific chemicals, and regional models that attempt to show general trends of ground-water vulnerability to contamination. To address regional ground-water vulnerability, a model may focus on characteristics of the soil, the geologic materials at and above the unconfined water table, or on the larger part of the geologic framework containing aquifers. A model's focus significantly affects the characteristics and, therefore, the utility of maps produced by the model. For example, a model focusing on the soil or vadose zone cannot adequately characterize the contamination potential of confined aquifers. The most commonly-used method for regional assessment of ground-water vulnerability is called "DRASTIC," an acronym for the seven factors that comprise the model. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded the development of the DRASTIC model, and used it as an assessment tool in their National Pesticide Survey (USEPA, 1992). In that Survey and in other assessments of contamination potential from application of agricultural chemicals, the pesticide version of DRASTIC is used; it differs from the standard DRASTIC model only in the degree of weighting applied to the seven factors. The DRASTIC model was developed by a committee of technical advisors who used the consensus approach to specify the relative significance of each factor. DRASTIC was designed primarily as a regional tool for prioritization, or screening, to indicate those areas (of at least 100 acres in size) which are generally more sensitive to contamination and, therefore, in need of more detailed mapping and evaluation or monitoring. The committee also intended DRASTIC to support decisions on allocation of scarce monitoring or remediation resources, and to serve as an educational tool. A detailed user's manual for the DRASTIC model (Aller and others, 1987) provides descriptions of common hydrogeologic settings across the United States and expected values for the seven factors; with this information and a specified "weight" or multiplier applied to each factor, DRASTIC scores can be calculated for each setting, and a map of these DRASTIC scores generated. The authors of this model intended it to be sufficiently objective and straightforward that it could be effectively used by persons with but a rudimentary knowledge of hydrogeologic principles. By adjusting the factor values for actual or interpreted local conditions a more knowledgeable person should be able to produce a somewhat more realistic and, therefore, reliable map of ground water vulnerability than by using the expected values for a given hydrogeologic setting. Other models for evaluating regional ground-water vulnerability have been developed; of importance to this report are models developed by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and a joint effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the ISGS. All of these models, as well as DRASTIC, can only estimate the relative potential for contamination, either with a numerical scheme or a hierarchy of contamination potential map units. The model developed by WDNR (Schmidt, 1987) is based on a numerical scheme. It was used to generate a statewide contamination susceptibility map of Wisconsin (Schmidt and Kessler, 1987); Schmidt (1987) defines ground water contamination susceptibility as the "ease with which water (and, presumably, accompanying contaminants) at the surface can reach the water table." The model is not limited to aquifers, but rather considers all unconfined ground water whether in sandy surface aquifers or low-permeability glacial till. Ground water in confined aquifers is not addressed. Contamination susceptibility is estimated by a factor-weighting scheme similar in concept to DRASTIC. The factors (soil texture, surficial deposits, depth to the water table, bedrock type, and glacial drift thickness) are assigned an arbitrary value based on perceived importance. These numbers are then weighted and summed to produce the contamination susceptibility score. This model is compared and contrasted with other models elsewhere in this report. In contrast, the ISGS method avoids the use of a numerical system to rate the relative potential for contamination, and instead orders the map units in a hierarchy from relatively low to relatively high contamination potential. Also in contrast to the two models described above, the ISGS model relies solely on the textural character of the geologic framework to a specified depth. For example, a statewide map (Berg and others, 1984, scale 1:500,000) addresses land burial of wastes, and shows the contamination potential of aquifers within geologic units in the upper 50 feet. Another ISGS map (Keefer and Berg, 1990) addresses the contamination of major, economically important aquifers, and therefore evaluates contamination potential to greater depths (to greater than 300 feet). In general, the ISGS contamination potential maps evaluate aquifers, and do not evaluate potential for contamination of ground water at the unconfined water table in geologic units that are not aquifers (for example, in glacial till or finegrained lake sediments). With the cooperation of the ISGS, I have developed a model (Seller and Berg, in press) for the regional assessment of aquifer contamination potential that is based on ISGS techniques, adapted to a broader map area where detailed information may be unavailable. This model was used to generate a map of aquifer contamination potential for an area encompassing parts of five states near southern Lake Michigan and Lake Erie; the model and map are currently being refined and evaluated.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Critical metals in manganese nodules from the Cook Islands EEZ, abundances and distributions

The Cook Islands (CIs) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) encompasses 1,977,000 km 2 and includes the Penrhyn and Samoa basins abyssal plains where manganese nodules flourish due to the availability of prolific nucleus material, slow sedimentation rates, and strong bottom currents. A group of CIs nodules was analyzed for mineralogical and chemical composition, which include many critical metals not before analyzed for CIs nodules. These nodules have varying sizes and nuclei material; however all are composed predominantly of δ-MnO 2 and X-ray amorphous iron oxyhydroxide. The mineralogy, Fe/Mn ratios, rare earth element contents, and slow growth rates (mean 1.9 mm/10 6 years) reflect formation primarily by hydrogenetic precipitation. The paucity of diagenetic input can be explained by low primary productivity at the surface and resultant low organic matter content in seafloor sediment, producing oxic seafloor and sub-seafloor environments. The nodules contain high mean contents of Co (0.41%), Ni (0.38%), Ti (1.20%), and total rare earth elements plus yttrium (REY; 0.167%), and also high contents of Mo, Nb, V, W, and Zr. Compiled data from a series of four cruises by the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Mining agency of Japan from 1985 to 2000 were used to generate a map that defines the statistical distribution of nodule abundance throughout the EEZ, except the Manihiki Plateau. The abundance distribution map shows a belt of high nodule abundance (19–45 kg/m 2 ) that starts in the southeast corner of the EEZ, runs northwest, and also bifurcates into a SW trending branch. Small, isolated areas contain abundances of nodules of up to 58 kg/m 2 . Six ~ 20,000 km 2 areas of particularly high abundance were chosen to represent potential exploration areas, and maps for metal concentration were generated to visualize metal distribution and to extrapolate estimated metal tonnages within the six sites and the EEZ as a whole. Grades for Mn, Cu, and Ni are low in CIs nodules in areas of high abundance; however, Ti, Co, and REY show high contents where nodule abundances are high. Of the six areas identified to represent a range of metal contents, one at the northern end of the N-S abundance main belt optimizes the most metals and would yield the highest dry metric tons for Mn (61,002,292), Ni (1,247,834), Mo (186,166), V (356,247), W (30,215), and Zr (195,323). When compared with the Clarion–Clipperton Zone, the CIs nodules show higher nodule abundances (> 25 kg/m 2 over ~ 123,844 km 2 ), and are more enriched in the green-tech, high-tech, and energy metals Co, Ti, Te, Nb, REY, Pt, and Zr. The CIs EEZ shows a significant resource potential for these critical metals due to their high prices, high demand, and the high nodule abundance, which will allow for a smaller footprint for a 20-year mine site and therefore smaller environmental impact.

Ore Geology Reviews↗

USGS2012

Prioritizing pesticide compounds for analytical methods development

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a periodic need to re-evaluate pesticide compounds in terms of priorities for inclusion in monitoring and studies and, thus, must also assess the current analytical capabilities for pesticide detection. To meet this need, a strategy has been developed to prioritize pesticides and degradates for analytical methods development. Screening procedures were developed to separately prioritize pesticide compounds in water and sediment. The procedures evaluate pesticide compounds in existing USGS analytical methods for water and sediment and compounds for which recent agricultural-use information was available. Measured occurrence (detection frequency and concentrations) in water and sediment, predicted concentrations in water and predicted likelihood of occurrence in sediment, potential toxicity to aquatic life or humans, and priorities of other agencies or organizations, regulatory or otherwise, were considered. Several existing strategies for prioritizing chemicals for various purposes were reviewed, including those that identify and prioritize persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic compounds, and those that determine candidates for future regulation of drinking-water contaminants. The systematic procedures developed and used in this study rely on concepts common to many previously established strategies. The evaluation of pesticide compounds resulted in the classification of compounds into three groups: Tier 1 for high priority compounds, Tier 2 for moderate priority compounds, and Tier 3 for low priority compounds. For water, a total of 247 pesticide compounds were classified as Tier 1 and, thus, are high priority for inclusion in analytical methods for monitoring and studies. Of these, about three-quarters are included in some USGS analytical method; however, many of these compounds are included on research methods that are expensive and for which there are few data on environmental samples. The remaining quarter of Tier 1 compounds are high priority as new analytes. The objective for analytical methods development is to design an integrated analytical strategy that includes as many of the Tier 1 pesticide compounds as possible in a relatively few, cost-effective methods. More than 60 percent of the Tier 1 compounds are high priority because they are anticipated to be present at concentrations approaching levels that could be of concern to human health or aquatic life in surface water or groundwater. An additional 17 percent of Tier 1 compounds were frequently detected in monitoring studies, but either were not measured at levels potentially relevant to humans or aquatic organisms, or do not have benchmarks available with which to compare concentrations. The remaining 21 percent are pesticide degradates that were included because their parent pesticides were in Tier 1. Tier 1 pesticide compounds for water span all major pesticide use groups and a diverse range of chemical classes, with herbicides and their degradates composing half of compounds. Many of the high priority pesticide compounds also are in several national regulatory programs for water, including those that are regulated in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act and those that are on the latest Contaminant Candidate List. For sediment, a total of 175 pesticide compounds were classified as Tier 1 and, thus, are high priority for inclusion in analytical methods available for monitoring and studies. More than 60 percent of these compounds are included in some USGS analytical method; however, some are spread across several research methods that are expensive to perform, and monitoring data are not extensive for many compounds. The remaining Tier 1 compounds for sediment are high priority as new analytes. The objective for analytical methods development for sediment is to enhance an existing analytical method that currently includes nearly half of the pesticide compounds in Tier 1 by adding as many additional Tier 1 compounds as are analytically compatible. About 35 percent of the Tier 1 compounds for sediment are high priority on the basis of measured occurrence. A total of 74 compounds, or 42 percent, are high priority on the basis of predicted likelihood of occurrence according to physical-chemical properties, and either have potential toxicity to aquatic life, high pesticide useage, or both. The remaining 22 percent of Tier 1 pesticide compounds were either degradates of Tier 1 parent compounds or included for other reasons. As with water, the Tier 1 pesticide compounds for sediment are distributed across the major pesticide-use groups; insecticides and their degradates are the largest fraction, making up 45 percent of Tier 1. In contrast to water, organochlorines, at 17 percent, are the largest chemical class for Tier 1 in sediment, which is to be expected because there is continued widespread detection in sediments of persistent organochlorine pesticides and their degradates at concentrations high enough for potential effects on aquatic life. Compared to water, there are fewer available benchmarks with which to compare contaminant concentrations in sediment, but a total of 19 Tier 1 compounds have at least one sediment benchmark or screening value for aquatic organisms. Of the 175 compounds in Tier 1, 77 percent have high aquatic-life toxicity, as defined for this process. This evaluation of pesticides and degradates resulted in two lists of compounds that are priorities for USGS analytical methods development, one for water and one for sediment. These lists will be used as the basis for redesigning and enhancing USGS analytical capabilities for pesticides in order to capture as many high-priority pesticide compounds as possible using an economically feasible approach.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2013

Historical methane hydrate project review

In 1995, U.S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the volume of natural gas stored in the hydrate accumulations of the United States. That study, along with numerous other studies, has shown that the amount of gas stored as methane hydrates in the world greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a scientific and technical challenge and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and occurrence in nature. Methane hydrate research in recent years has mostly focused on: (1) documenting the geologic parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates in nature, (2) assessing the volume of natural gas stored within various gas hydrate accumulations, (3) analyzing the production response and characteristics of methane hydrates, (4) identifying and predicting natural and induced environmental and climate impacts of natural gas hydrates, and (5) analyzing the effects of methane hydrate on drilling safety. Methane hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-‐lattice holds gas molecules in a cage-‐like structure. The gas and water becomes a solid under specific temperature and pressure conditions within the Earth, called the hydrate stability zone. Other factors that control the presence of methane hydrate in nature include the source of the gas included within the hydrates, the physical and chemical controls on the migration of gas with a sedimentary basin containing methane hydrates, the availability of the water also included in the hydrate structure, and the presence of a suitable host sediment or “reservoir”. The geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrates have become collectively known as the “methane hydrate petroleum system”, which has become the focus of numerous hydrate research programs. Recognizing the importance of methane hydrate research and the need for a coordinated effort, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-‐193, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act called for the Secretary of Energy to begin a methane hydrate research and development program in consultation with other U.S. federal agencies. At the same time a new methane hydrate research program had been launched in Japan by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to develop plans for a methane hydrate exploratory drilling project in the Nankai Trough. Since this early start we have seen other countries including India, China, Canada, and the Republic of Korea establish large gas hydrate research and development programs. These national led efforts have also included the investment in a long list of important scientific research drilling expeditions and production test studies that have provided a wealth of information on the occurrence of methane hydrate in nature. The most notable expeditions and projects have including the following: -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 164 (1995) -‐Japan Nankai Trough Project (1999-‐2000) -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 (2004) -‐Japan Tokai-‐oki to Kumano-‐nada Project (2004) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg I (2005) -‐Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (2005) -‐Malaysia Gumusut-‐Kakap Project (2006) -‐India NGHP Expedition 01 (2006) -‐China GMGS Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg II (2009) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 02 (2010) -‐MH-‐21 Nankai Trough Pre-‐Production Expedition (2012-‐2013) -‐Mallik Gas Hydrate Testing Projects (1998/2002/2007-‐2008) -‐Alaska Mount Elbert Stratigraphic Test Well (2007) -‐Alaska Iġnik Sikumi Methane Hydrate Production Test Well (2011-‐2012) Research coring and seismic programs carried out by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), starting with the ODP Leg 164 drilling of the Blake Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean in 1995, have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the geologic controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of gas hydrates in marine environments. For the most part methane hydrate research expeditions carried out by the ODP and IODP provided the foundation for our scientific understanding of gas hydrates. The methane hydrate research efforts under ODP-‐IODP have mostly dealt with the assessment of the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate, with a specific goal to study the role methane hydrates may play in the global carbon cycle. Over the last 10 years, national led methane hydrate research programs, along with industry interest have led to the development and execution of major methane hydrate production field test programs. Two of the most important production field testing programs have been conducted at the Mallik site in the Mackenzie River Delta of Canada and in the Eileen methane hydrate accumulation on the North Slope of Alaska. Most recently we have also seen the completion of the world’s first marine methane hydrate production test in the Nankai Trough in the offshore of Japan. Industry interest in gas hydrates has also included important projects that have dealt with the assessment of geologic hazards associated with the presence of hydrates. The scientific drilling and associated coring, logging, and borehole monitoring technologies developed in the long list of methane hydrate related field studies are one of the most important developments and contributions associated with methane hydrate research and development activities. Methane hydrate drilling has been conducted from advanced scientific drilling platforms like the JOIDES Resolution and the D/V Chikyu, which feature highly advanced integrated core laboratories and borehole logging capabilities. Hydrate research drilling has also included the use of a wide array of industry, geotechnical and multi-‐service ships. All of which have been effectively used to collect invaluable geologic and engineering data on the occurrence of methane hydrates throughout the world. Technologies designed specifically for the collection and analysis of undisturbed methane hydrate samples have included the development of a host of pressure core systems and associated specialty laboratory apparatus. The study and use of both wireline conveyed and logging-‐while-‐drilling technologies have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the in-‐situ nature of hydrate-‐bearing sediments. Recent developments in borehole instrumentation specifically designed to monitor changes associated with hydrates in nature through time or to evaluate the response of hydrate accumulations to production have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the complex nature and evolution of methane hydrate systems. Our understanding of how methane hydrates occur and behave in nature is still growing and evolving – we do not yet know if methane hydrates can be economically produced, nor do we know fully the role of hydrates as an agent of climate change or as a geologic hazard. But it is known for certain that scientific drilling has contributed greatly to our understanding of hydrates in nature and will continue to be a critical source of the information to advance our understanding of methane hydrates.

Report↗