SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Project Summary”

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 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources

USGS2017

Final synthesis report for factors controlling DDE dechlorination rates on the palos verdes shelf: A field and laboratory investigation

This project was organized into separate field and laboratory studies aimed at answering “18 questions” in the original Scope of Work (cf., section 2 of this report, Background, for explanation). Because of some early results, certain questions became irrelevant and were, therefore, not pursued. In other cases, there simply was not enough time to complete the originally planned studies. On the other hand, additional work, not identified in any of the original “18 questions”, was carried out for purposes of addressing specific issues of concern to the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Examples of the latter include: 1) the analysis of an expanded list of sediment cores for DDX (DDX refers to the ten DDT-related compounds of interest in this study; cf., Eganhouse et al., [1]) and selected PCB congeners to facilitate estimation of site-specific reductive dechlorination (RDC) and total loss rates, 2) analysis of gravity and box cores for trace elements to allow stratigraphic alignment, and 3) determination of the extent of mineralization of p,p’-DDE (1-chloro-2-[2,2-dichloro-1-(4- chlorophenyl)ethyl]benzene) in microcosm experiments. In this Executive Summary, we offer a brief recapitulation of what was learned about the factors controlling reductive dechlorination of p,p’-DDE in Palos Verdes Shelf (PVS) sediments using the “18 questions” as a structural guide. The summary is written in narrative form, but references to specific sections (corresponding to the “18 questions”) are identified parenthetically in the text so that the reader can explore the expanded answers that appear later in the report.

Palos Verdes Shelf↗

USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2014

Archive of digital chirp subbottom profile data collected during USGS cruise 12BIM03 offshore of the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, July 2012

From July 23 - 31, 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted geophysical surveys to investigate the geologic controls on barrier island framework and long-term sediment transport along the oil spill mitigation sand berm constructed at the north end and just offshore of the Chandeleur Islands, La. (figure 1). This effort is part of a broader USGS study, which seeks to better understand barrier island evolution over medium time scales (months to years). This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital chirp subbottom data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System (GIS) files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Gained (showing a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Abbreviations page for expansions of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 12BIM03 tells us the data were collected in 2012 during the third field activity for that project in that calendar year and BIM is a generic code, which represents efforts related to Barrier Island Mapping. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity ID. All chirp systems use a signal of continuously varying frequency; the EdgeTech SB-424 system used during this survey produces high-resolution, shallow-penetration (typically less than 50 milliseconds (ms)) profile images of sub-seafloor stratigraphy. The towfish contains a transducer that transmits and receives acoustic energy and is typically towed 1 - 2 m below the sea surface. As transmitted acoustic energy intersects density boundaries, such as the seafloor or sub-surface sediment layers, energy is reflected back toward the transducer, received, and recorded by a PC-based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at regular time intervals (for example, 0.125 seconds (s)) and returned energy is recorded for a specific duration (for example, 50 ms). In this way, a two-dimensional (2-D) vertical image of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship track is produced. Figure 2 displays the acquisition geometry. Refer to table 1 for a summary of acquisition parameters and table 2 for trackline statistics. The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG Y rev. 0 format (Barry and others, 1975); the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header are in ASCII format instead of EBCDIC format. The SEG Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2010). See the How To Download SEG Y Data page for download instructions. The web version of this archive does not contain the SEG Y trace files. These files are very large and would require extremely long download times. To obtain the complete DVD archive, contact USGS Information Services at 1-888-ASK-USGS or infoservices@usgs.gov. The printable profiles provided here are GIF images that were processed and gained using SU software and can be viewed from the Profiles page or from links located on the trackline maps; refer to the Software page for links to example SU processing scripts. The SEG Y files are available on the DVD version of this report or on the Web, downloadable via the USGS Coastal and Marine Geoscience Data System (http://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov). The data are also available for viewing using GeoMapApp (http://www.geomapapp.org) and Virtual Ocean (http://www.virtualocean.org) multi-platform open source software. Detailed information about the navigation system used can be found in table 1 and the Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs. To view the trackline maps and navigation files, and for more information about these items, see the Navigation page.

Louisiana↗

USGS2021

Development of a groundwater-simulation model in the Los Angeles Coastal Plain, Los Angeles County, California

Executive Summary The Los Angeles Coastal Plain (LACP) covers about 580 square miles and is the largest coastal plain of semiarid southern California. The LACP is heavily developed with mostly residential, commercial, and industrial land uses that rely heavily on groundwater for water supply. In 2010, the LACP was home to about 14 percent of California’s population, or about 5.4 million residents. The LACP is also a major commercial and industrial hub with industries including manufacturing, aerospace, entertainment, and tourism. There has been a heavy reliance on groundwater from the LACP for many years. An average of 305,000 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) of groundwater was used annually from the LACP from 1971 to 2015. The need to replenish the groundwater basins within the LACP was recognized as far back as the 1930s, when spreading grounds were first used to replenish groundwater basins and store water underground during times of water surplus to meet demands in times of shortage. Seawater intrusion resulting from freshwater pumping was first observed in the 1940s. As a result, injection of imported water through wells at what is now the West Coast Basin Barrier Project began on an experimental basis in 1951. Managed aquifer recharge from the spreading grounds and barrier wells is now a substantial component of the LACP’s groundwater supply. The average annual recharge from water spreading from 1971 to 2015 was about 120,000 acre-ft/yr, and the average annual injection into the barrier wells was about 33,000 acre-ft/yr. Other inflows include areal recharge, underflow from San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys, and onshore flow from the ocean. The average annual recharge from these sources was 100,000 acre-feet (acre-ft) from 1971 to 2015. Additionally, cross-boundary flow from Orange County into the western Orange County subareas of the LACP was simulated as 48,000 acre-ft from 1971 to 2015. This study, conducted in cooperation with the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD), involved an assessment of the historical and present status of groundwater resources in the LACP and the development of tools to better understand the groundwater system. These efforts were built upon results from previous studies and incorporate new information and developments in modeling capabilities to provide a more detailed analysis of the aquifer systems. This study includes a comprehensive compilation of geologic and hydrologic data (Chapter A), development of a chronostratigraphic model that provides a detailed description of the LACP aquifer systems (Chapter B), characterization of the groundwater hydrology of the LACP, including a down-hole analysis of grain size using lithologic and geophysical logs (Chapter C), and development and application of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain Groundwater-flow Model (LACPGM) to simulate past groundwater conditions, estimate groundwater-budget components and flow paths, and approximate future groundwater conditions under different scenarios (Chapter D).

California↗

USGS2013

Compilation, quality control, analysis, and summary of discrete suspended-sediment and ancillary data in the United States, 1901-2010

Human-induced and natural changes to the transport of sediment and sediment-associated constituents can degrade aquatic ecosystems and limit human uses of streams and rivers. The lack of a dedicated, easily accessible, quality-controlled database of sediment and ancillary data has made it difficult to identify sediment-related water-quality impairments and has limited understanding of how human actions affect suspended-sediment concentrations and transport. The purpose of this report is to describe the creation of a quality-controlled U.S. Geological Survey suspended-sediment database, provide guidance for its use, and summarize characteristics of suspended-sediment data through 2010. The database is provided as an online application at http://cida.usgs.gov/sediment to allow users to view, filter, and retrieve available suspended-sediment and ancillary data. A data recovery, filtration, and quality-control process was performed to expand the availability, representativeness, and utility of existing suspended-sediment data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in the United States before January 1, 2011. Information on streamflow condition, sediment grain size, and upstream landscape condition were matched to sediment data and sediment-sampling sites to place data in context with factors that may influence sediment transport. Suspended-sediment and selected ancillary data are presented from across the United States with respect to time, streamflow, and landscape condition. Examples of potential uses of this database for identifying sediment-related impairments, assessing trends, and designing new data collection activities are provided. This report and database can support local and national-level decision making, project planning, and data mining activities related to the transport of suspended-sediment and sediment-associated constituents.

Data Series↗

USGS2016

Evaluation of Caspian tern ( Hydroprogne caspia ) and snowy plover ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus ) nesting on modified islands at the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, California—2015 Annual Report

Executive Summary In order to address the 2008/10 NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion for operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) have developed and begun implementation of Caspian tern ( Hydroprogne caspia ) management plans. This implementation includes relocating nesting Caspian terns out of the Columbia River estuary and the mid-Columbia River region to reduce predation on salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act. USACE and Reclamation developed Caspian tern nesting habitat at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (DENWR), California prior to the 2015 nesting season. Further, to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts between nesting Caspian terns and threatened western snowy plovers ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), nesting habitat for snowy plovers also was developed. Seven recently constructed islands within two managed ponds (Ponds A16 and SF2) of DENWR were modified to provide habitat attractive to nesting Caspian terns (5 islands), and snowy plovers (2 islands). These seven islands were a subset of 46 islands recently constructed in Ponds A16 and SF2 to provide waterbird nesting habitat as part of the South Bay Salt Pond (SBSP) Restoration Project. We used social attraction methods (decoys and electronic call systems) to attract Caspian terns and snowy plovers to these seven modified islands, and conducted surveys between March and September 2015 to evaluate nest numbers, nest density, and productivity. Results from the 2015 nesting season indicate that island modifications and social attraction measures were successful in establishing Caspian tern breeding colonies at Ponds A16 and SF2 of DENWR. Caspian terns nested on three of the five islands modified for Caspian terns (1 island in Pond A16 and 2 islands in Pond SF2). Caspian terns initiated at least 224 nests, fledged at least 174 chicks, and exhibited a breeding success rate of 0.78 fledged chicks/breeding pair. These results are promising considering it was the first year of the study and there was no prior history of Caspian terns nesting at Ponds A16 and SF2. In contrast, snowy plovers did not attempt to nest on any island in Ponds A16 and SF2. These results demonstrate the potential of social attraction measures to help establish tern nesting colonies in San Francisco Bay. Social attraction measures similar to those used in this study, but targeting other species such as Forster’s terns and American avocets, may help to establish waterbird breeding colonies at wetlands enhanced as part of the SBSP Restoration Project.

California↗

USGS2013

National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources: Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed an evaluation of the technically accessible storage resource ( TA SR ) for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) for 36 sedimentary basins in the onshore areas and State waters of the United States. The TA SR is an estimate of the geologic storage resource that may be available for CO 2 injection and storage and is based on current geologic and hydrologic knowledge of the subsurface and current engineering practices. By using a geology-based probabilistic assessment methodology, the USGS assessment team members obtained a mean estimate of approximately 3,000 metric gigatons (Gt) of subsurface CO 2 storage capacity that is technically accessible below onshore areas and State waters; this amount is more than 500 times the 2011 annual U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions of 5.5 Gt (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/). In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110–140) directed the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national assessment of geologic storage resources for CO 2 in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, and State geological surveys. The USGS developed a methodology to estimate storage resource potential in geologic formations in the United States (Burruss and others, 2009, USGS Open-File Report (OFR) 2009–1035; Brennan and others, 2010, USGS OFR 2010–1127; Blondes, Brennan, and others, 2013, USGS OFR 2013–1055). In 2012, the USGS completed the assessment, and the results are summarized in this Fact Sheet and are provided in more detail in companion reports (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013a,b; see related reports at right). The goal of this project was to conduct an initial assessment of storage capacity on a regional basis, and results are not intended for use in the evaluation of specific sites for potential CO 2 storage. The national assessment was a geology-based examination of all sedimentary basins in the onshore and State waters area of the United States that contain storage assessment units (SAUs) that could be defined according to geologic and hydrologic characteristics. Although geologic storage of CO 2 may be possible in some areas not assessed by the USGS, the SAUs identified in this assessment represent those areas within sedimentary basins that met the assessment criteria. A geologic description of each SAU was prepared; descriptions for SAUs in several basins are in Warwick and Corum (2012, USGS OFR 2012–1024).

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2018

Understanding the influence of nutrients on stream ecosystems in agricultural landscapes

Sustaining the quality of the Nation’s water resources and the health of our diverse ecosystems depends on the availability of sound water-resources data and information to develop effective, science-based policies. Effective management of water resources also brings more certainty and efficiency to important economic sectors. Taken together, these actions lead to immediate and long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits that make a difference to the lives of the almost 400 million people projected to live in the United States by 2050. In 1991, Congress established the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) to address where, when, why, and how the Nation’s water quality has changed, or is likely to change in the future, in response to human activities and natural factors. Since then, NAWQA has been a leading source of scientific data and knowledge used by national, regional, State, and local agencies to develop science-based policies and management strategies to improve and protect water resources used for drinking water, recreation, irrigation, energy development, and ecosystem needs ( https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/applications/ ). Plans for the third decade of NAWQA (2013–23) address priority water-quality issues and science needs identified by NAWQA stakeholders, such as the Advisory Committee on Water Information and the National Research Council, and are designed to meet increasing challenges related to population growth, increasing needs for clean water, and changing land-use and weather patterns. Excess nutrients are a pervasive problem of streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The current report, “The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Understanding the Effects of Nutrients on Stream Ecosystems in Agricultural Landscapes,” presents a summary of results from USGS investigations conducted from 2003 to 2011 on processes that influence nutrients and how nutrient enrichment can alter biological components of agricultural streams. This study included collecting data from 232 sites distributed among eight study areas. This report summarizes findings on processes that influence nutrients and how nutrient enrichment can alter biological communities in agricultural streams. These findings are relevant to local, State, regional, and national decision-makers involved in efforts to (1) better understand the influence of nutrients on agricultural streams, (2) develop nutrient criteria for streams and rivers, (3) reduce nutrients to streams and downstream receiving waters, and (4) develop tools for tracking nutrient and biological conditions following nutrient reduction strategies. All NAWQA reports are available online at https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/bib/ . We hope this publication will provide you with insights and information to meet your water-resource needs and will foster increased citizen awareness and involvement in the protection and restoration of our Nation’s waters. The information in this report is intended primarily for those interested or involved in resource management and protection, conservation, regulation, and policymaking at the regional and national levels.

Central Columbia-Yakima River Basins, Great River ↗

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↗