Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Nature, Scientific Data”

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

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

At least 865 records · Page 48Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Mineral-deposit models for northeast Asia, Chapter 3 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Archean through Mesoproterozoic metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 4 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Neoproterozoic through Silurian metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 5 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Devonian through early Carboniferous (Mississippian) metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 6 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Late Carboniferous through early Jurassic metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 7 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Middle Jurassic through Quaternary metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 8 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Tectonic and metallogenic model for northeast Asia, Chapter 9 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Appendix A: Description of the Northeast Asia Project and Associated Products

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2009

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

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

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

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

Professional Paper↗
USGS2009

Trends in streamflow characteristics of selected sites in the Elkhorn River, Salt Creek, and Lower Platte River Basins, Eastern Nebraska, 1928-2004, and evaluation of streamflows in relation to instream-flow criteria, 1953-2004

The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources approved instream-flow appropriations on the Platte River to maintain fish communities, whooping crane roost habitat, and wet meadows used by several wild bird species. In the lower Platte River region, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission owns an appropriation filed to maintain streamflow for fish communities between the Platte River confluence with the Elkhorn River and the mouth of the Platte River. Because Elkhorn River flow is an integral part of the flow in the reach addressed by this appropriation, the Upper Elkhorn and Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources Districts are involved in overall management of anthropogenic effects on the availability of surface water for instream requirements. The Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) and other estimation methodologies were used previously to determine instream requirements for Platte River biota, which led to the filing of five water appropriations applications with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources in 1993 by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. One of these requested instream-flow appropriations of 3,700 cubic feet per second was for the reach from the Elkhorn River to the mouth of the Platte River. Four appropriations were granted with modifications in 1998, by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. Daily streamflow data for the periods of record were summarized for 17 streamflow-gaging stations in Nebraska to evaluate streamflow characteristics, including low-flow intervals for consecutive durations of 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 60, and 183 days. Temporal trends in selected streamflow statistics were not adjusted for variability in precipitation. Results indicated significant positive temporal trends in annual flow for the period of record at eight streamflow-gaging stations - Platte River near Duncan (06774000), Platte River at North Bend (06796000), Elkhorn River at Neligh (06798500), Logan Creek near Uehling (06799500), Maple Creek near Nickerson (06800000), Elkhorn River at Waterloo (06800500), Salt Creek at Greenwood (06803555), and Platte River at Louisville (06805500). In general, sites in the Elkhorn River Basin upstream from Norfolk showed fewer significant trends than did sites downstream from Norfolk and sites in the Platte River and Salt Creek basins, where trends in low flows also were positive. Historical Platte River streamflow records for the streamflow-gaging station at Louisville, Nebraska, were used to determine the number of days per water year (Sept. 30 to Oct. 1) when flows failed to satisfy the minimum criteria of the instream-flow appropriation prior to its filing in 1993. Before 1993, the median number of days the criteria were not satisfied was about 120 days per water year. During 1993 through 2004, daily mean flows at Louisville, Nebraska, have failed to satisfy the criteria for 638 days total (median value equals 21.5 days per year). Most of these low-flow intervals occurred in summer through early fall. For water years 1953 through 2004, of the discrete intervals when flow was less that the criteria levels, 61 percent were 3 days or greater in duration, and 38 percent were 7 days or greater in duration. The median duration of intervals of flow less than the criteria levels was 4 consecutive days during 1953 through 2004.

Nebraska↗
USGS2006

Geology, ground-water hydrology, geochemistry, and ground-water simulation of the Beaumont and Banning Storage Units, San Gorgonio Pass area, Riverside County, California

Ground water has been the only source of potable water supply for residential, industrial, and agricultural users in the Beaumont and Banning storage units of the San Gorgonio Pass area, Riverside County, California. Ground-water levels in the Beaumont area have declined as much as 100 feet between the early 1920s and early 2000s, and numerous natural springs have stopped flowing. In 1961, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) entered into a contract with the California State Department of Water Resources to receive 17,300 acre-feet per year of water to be delivered by the California State Water Project (SWP) to supplement natural recharge. Currently (2005), a pipeline is delivering SWP water into the area, and the SGPWA is artificially recharging the ground-water system using recharge ponds located along Little San Gorgonio Creek in Cherry Valley with the SWP water. In addition to artificial recharge, SGPWA is considering the direct delivery of SWP water for the irrigation of local golf courses and for agricultural supply in lieu of ground-water pumpage. To better understand the potential hydrologic effects of different water-management alternatives on ground-water levels and movement in the Beaumont and Banning storage units, existing geohydrologic and geochemical data were compiled, new data from a basin-wide ground-water level and water-quality monitoring network were collected, monitoring wells were installed near the Little San Gorgonio Creek recharge ponds, geohydrologic and geochemical analyses were completed, and a ground-water flow simulation model was developed. The San Gorgonio Pass area was divided into several storage units on the basis of mapped or inferred faults. This study addresses primarily the Beaumont and Banning storage units. The geologic units in the study area were generalized into crystalline basement rocks and sedimentary deposits. The younger sedimentary deposits and the surficial deposits are the main water-bearing deposits in the San Gorgonio Pass area. The water-bearing deposits were divided into three aquifers: (1) the perched aquifer, (2) the upper aquifer, and (3) the lower aquifer based on lithologic and downhole geophysical logs. Natural recharge in the San Gorgonio Pass area was estimated using INFILv3, a deterministic distributed- parameter precipitation-runoff model. The INFILv3 model simulated that the potential recharge of precipitation and runoff in the Beaumont and Banning storage units was about 3,710 acre-feet per year and that the potential recharge in 28 sub-drainage basins upstream of the storage units was about 6,180 acre-feet per year. The water supply for the Beaumont and Banning storage units is supplied by pumping ground water from wells in the Canyon (Edgar and Banning Canyons), Banning Bench, Beaumont, and Banning storage units. Total annual pumpage from the Beaumont and Banning storage units ranged from about 1,630 acre-feet in 1936 to about 20,000 acre-feet in 2003. Ground-water levels declined by as much as 100 feet in the Beaumont storage unit from 1926-2003 in response to ground-water pumping of about 450,160 acre-feet during this period. Since ground-water development began in the San Gorgonio Pass area, there have been several sources of artificial recharge to the basin including return flow from applied water on crops, golf courses, and landscape; septic-tank seepage; and infiltration of storm runoff diversions and imported water into recharge ponds. Return flow from applied water and septic-tank seepage was estimated to reach a maximum of about 8,100 acre-feet per year in 2003. Owing to the great depth of water in much of study area (in excess of 150 feet), the return flow and septic-tank seepage takes years to decades to reach the water table. Stable-isotope data indicate that the source of ground-water recharge was precipitation from storms passing through the San Gorgonio Pass as opposed to runoff from the higher altitudes of the San Bernar

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

Simulations of groundwater flow, transport, and age in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for a study of transport of anthropogenic and natural contaminants (TANC) to public-supply wells

Vulnerability to contamination from manmade and natural sources can be characterized by the groundwater-age distribution measured in a supply well and the associated implications for the source depths of the withdrawn water. Coupled groundwater flow and transport models were developed to simulate the transport of the geochemical age-tracers carbon-14, tritium, and three chlorofluorocarbon species to public-supply wells in Albuquerque, New Mexico. A separate, regional-scale simulation of transport of carbon-14 that used the flow-field computed by a previously documented regional groundwater flow model was calibrated and used to specify the initial concentrations of carbon-14 in the local-scale transport model. Observations of the concentrations of each of the five chemical species, in addition to water-level observations and measurements of intra-borehole flow within a public-supply well, were used to calibrate parameters of the local-scale groundwater flow and transport models. The calibrated groundwater flow model simulates the mixing of “young” groundwater, which entered the groundwater flow system after 1950 as recharge at the water table, with older resident groundwater that is more likely associated with natural contaminants. Complexity of the aquifer system in the zone of transport between the water table and public-supply well screens was simulated with a geostatistically generated stratigraphic realization based upon observed lithologic transitions at borehole control locations. Because effective porosity was simulated as spatially uniform, the simulated age tracers are more efficiently transported through the portions of the simulated aquifer with relatively higher simulated hydraulic conductivity. Non-pumping groundwater wells with long screens that connect aquifer intervals having different hydraulic heads can provide alternate pathways for contaminant transport that are faster than the advective transport through the aquifer material. Simulation of flow and transport through these wells requires time discretization that adequately represents periods of pumping and non-pumping. The effects of intra-borehole flow are not fully represented in the simulation because it employs seasonal stress periods, which are longer than periods of pumping and non-pumping. Further simulations utilizing daily pumpage data and model stress periods may help quantify the relative effects of intra-borehole versus advective aquifer flow on the transport of contaminants near the public-supply wells. The fraction of young water withdrawn from the studied supply well varies with simulated pumping rates due to changes in the relative contributions to flow from different aquifer intervals. The advective transport of dissolved solutes from a known contaminant source to the public-supply wells was simulated by using particle-tracking. Because of the transient groundwater flow field, scenarios with alternative contaminant release times result in different simulated-particle fates, most of which are withdrawn from the aquifer at wells that are between the source and the studied supply well. The relatively small effective porosity required to simulate advective transport from the simulated contaminant source to the studied supply well is representative of a preferential pathway and not the predominant aquifer effective porosity that was estimated by the calibration of the model to observed chemical-tracer concentrations.

New Mexico↗
USGS2016

Water balance monitoring for two bioretention gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, 2011–14

Bioretention gardens are used to help mitigate stormwater runoff in urban settings in an attempt to restore the hydrologic response of the developed land to a natural predevelopment response in which more water is infiltrated rather than routed directly to urban drainage networks. To better understand the performance of bioretention gardens in facilitating infiltration of stormwater in eastern Nebraska, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Douglas County Environmental Services and the Nebraska Environmental Trust, assessed the water balance of two bioretention gardens located in Omaha, Nebraska by monitoring the amount of stormwater entering and leaving the gardens. One garden is on the Douglas County Health Center campus, and the other garden is on the property of the Eastern Nebraska Office on Aging. For the Douglas County Health Center, bioretention garden performance was evaluated on the basis of volume reduction by comparing total inflow volume to total outflow volume. The bioretention garden reduced inflow volumes from a minimum of 33 percent to 100 percent (a complete reduction in inflow volume) depending on the size of the event. Although variable, the percent reduction of the inflow volume tended to decrease with increasing total event rainfall. To assess how well the garden reduces stormwater peak inflow rates, peak inflows were plotted against peak outflows measured at the bioretention garden. Only 39 of the 255 events had any overflow, indicating 100 percent peak reduction in the other events. Of those 39 events having overflow, the mean peak reduction was 63 percent. No overflow events were recorded at the bioretention garden at the Eastern Nebraska Office on Aging; therefore, data were not available for an event-based overflow analysis.Monitoring period summary of the water balance at both bio-retention gardens indicates that most of the stormwater in the bioretention gardens is stored in the subsurface. Evapotranspiration was attributed to a small percentage of the outputs on an annual basis (3 percent at Douglas County Health Center site and 5 percent at Eastern Nebraska Office onAging site), which indicates that vegetative water uptake is not a primary factor in the water budget.

Nebraska↗
USGS2014

The future of nearshore processes research

The nearshore is the transition region between land and the continental shelf including (from onshore to offshore) coastal plains, wetlands, estuaries, coastal cliffs, dunes, beaches, surf zones (regions of wave breaking), and the inner shelf (Figure ES-1). Nearshore regions are vital to the national economy, security, commerce, and recreation. The nearshore is dynamically evolving, is often densely populated, and is under increasing threat from sea level rise, long-term erosion, extreme storms, and anthropogenic influences. Worldwide, almost one billion people live at elevations within 10 m of present sea level. Long-term erosion threatens communities, infrastructure, ecosystems, and habitat. Extreme storms can cause billions of dollars of damage. Degraded water quality impacts ecosystem and human health. Nearshore processes, the complex interactions between water, sediment, biota, and humans, must be understood and predicted to manage this often highly developed yet vulnerable nearshore environment. Over the past three decades, the understanding of nearshore processes has improved. However, societal needs are growing with increased coastal urbanization and threats of future climate change, and significant scientific challenges remain. To address these challenges, members of academia, industry, and federal agencies (USGS, USACE, NPS, NOAA, FEMA, ONR) met at the “The Past and Future of Nearshore Processes Research: Reflections on the Sallenger Years and a New Vision for the Future” workshop to develop a nearshore processes research vision where societal needs and science challenges intersect. The resulting vision is comprised of three broad research themes: Long-term coastal evolution due to natural and anthropogenic processes: As global climate change alters the rates of sea level rise and potentially storm patterns and coastal urbanization increases over the coming decades, an understanding of coastal evolution is critical. Improved knowledge of long-term morphological, ecological, and societal processes and their interactions will result in an improved ability to simulate coastal change. This will enable proactive solutions for resilient coasts and better guidance for reducing coastal vulnerability. Extreme Events: Flooding, erosion, and the subsequent recovery: Hurricane Sandy caused flooding and erosion along hundreds of miles of shoreline, flooded New York City, and impacted communities and infrastructure. Overall U.S. coastal extreme event related economic losses have increased substantially. Furthermore, climate change may cause an increase in coastal extreme events and rising sea levels could increase the occurrence of extreme events. Addressing this research theme will result in an improved understanding of the physical processes during extreme events, leading to improved models of flooding, erosion, and recovery. The resulting societal benefit will be more resilient coastal communities. The physical, biological and chemical processes impacting human and ecosystem health: Nearshore regions are used for recreation, tourism, and human habitation, and provide habitat and valuable ecosystem services. These areas must be sustained for future generations, however overall coastal water quality is declining due to microbial pathogens, fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy metal contamination, threatening ecosystem and human health. To ensure sustainable nearshore regions, predictive real-time water- and sediment-based based pollutant modeling capabilities must be developed, which requires expanding our knowledge of the physics, chemistry, and biology of the nearshore. The resulting societal benefits will include better beach safety, healthier ecosystems, and improved mitigation and regulatory policies. The scientists and engineers of the U.S. nearshore community are poised to make significant progress on these research themes, which have significant societal impact. The U.S. nearshore community, including academic, government, and industry colleagues, recommends multi-agency investment into a coordinated development of observational and modeling research infrastructure to address these themes, as discussed in the whitepaper. The observational infrastructure should include development of new sensors and methods, focused observational programs, and expanded nearshore observing systems. The modeling infrastructure should include improved process representation, better model coupling, incorporation of data assimilation techniques, and testing of real-time models. The observations will provide test beds to compare and improve models.

Report↗
USGS2022

Age and water-quality characteristics of groundwater discharge to the South Loup River, Nebraska, 2019

Streams in the Loup River Basin are sensitive to groundwater withdrawals because of the close hydrologic connection between groundwater and surface water. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Upper Loup and Lower Loup Natural Resources Districts, and the Nebraska Environmental Trust, studied the age and water-quality characteristics of groundwater near the South Loup River to assess the possible effects of a multiyear drought on streamflow. Groundwater sampled in wells screened in Quaternary-age deposits displayed a wide range of mean ages (27 to 2,100 years), fraction modern, and susceptibility index values. Groundwater with higher concentrations of chloride and higher specific conductance was indicative of younger groundwater with a narrower age distribution and is more sensitive to climatic disturbances such as short-term drought conditions, based on the calculated susceptibility index. Groundwater samples from wells and springs in Pliocene-age deposits were categorized into two groups with different geochemical and age characteristics. One sample group of springs and wells, called the Western Pliocene, had higher concentrations of chloride and nitrate with young mean ages (18 to 77 years) and narrow age distributions. Groundwater in the Western Pliocene sample group is susceptible to short-term drought. In contrast, the other sample group from Pliocene-age deposits to the east (called Pliocene) had lower concentrations of nitrate, chloride, and mean groundwater ages ranging from 1,900 to 2,900 years old and is less likely to be affected by short-term drought conditions. Groundwater sampled from three wells screened in the Ogallala Formation was shown to have the oldest mean ages ranging from 8,700 to 23,000 years and the lowest calculated susceptibility index values observed in this study. Strong upward hydraulic gradients measured in wells indicated that groundwater from the Ogallala Formation is likely contributing to streamflow of the South Loup River. Continuously measured gage height and specific conductance data indicated groundwater discharge from Quaternary-age deposits was highly responsive to precipitation events. In contrast, groundwater discharge from Pliocene-age deposits (Pliocene sample group) was far less responsive, indicating groundwater discharge from Pliocene-age deposits is likely more resilient to short-term drought conditions.

Nebraska↗
USGS2011

Regional groundwater-flow model of the Redwall-Muav, Coconino, and alluvial basin aquifer systems of northern and central Arizona

A numerical flow model (MODFLOW) of the groundwater flow system in the primary aquifers in northern Arizona was developed to simulate interactions between the aquifers, perennial streams, and springs for predevelopment and transient conditions during 1910 through 2005. Simulated aquifers include the Redwall-Muav, Coconino, and basin-fill aquifers. Perennial stream reaches and springs that derive base flow from the aquifers were simulated, including the Colorado River, Little Colorado River, Salt River, Verde River, and perennial reaches of tributary streams. Simulated major springs include Blue Spring, Del Rio Springs, Havasu Springs, Verde River headwater springs, several springs that discharge adjacent to major Verde River tributaries, and many springs that discharge to the Colorado River. Estimates of aquifer hydraulic properties and groundwater budgets were developed from published reports and groundwater-flow models. Spatial extents of aquifers and confining units were developed from geologic data, geophysical models, a groundwater-flow model for the Prescott Active Management Area, drill logs, geologic logs, and geophysical logs. Spatial and temporal distributions of natural recharge were developed by using a water-balance model that estimates recharge from direct infiltration. Additional natural recharge from ephemeral channel infiltration was simulated in alluvial basins. Recharge at wastewater treatment facilities and incidental recharge at agricultural fields and golf courses were also simulated. Estimates of predevelopment rates of groundwater discharge to streams, springs, and evapotranspiration by phreatophytes were derived from previous reports and on the basis of streamflow records at gages. Annual estimates of groundwater withdrawals for agriculture, municipal, industrial, and domestic uses were developed from several sources, including reported withdrawals for nonexempt wells, estimated crop requirements for agricultural wells, and estimated per capita water use for exempt wells. Accuracy of the simulated groundwater-flow system was evaluated by using observational control from water levels in wells, estimates of base flow from streamflow records, and estimates of spring discharge. Major results from the simulations include the importance of variations in recharge rates throughout the study area and recharge along ephemeral and losing stream reaches in alluvial basins. Insights about the groundwater-flow systems in individual basins include the hydrologic influence of geologic structures in some areas and that stream-aquifer interactions along the lower part of the Little Colorado River are an effective control on water level distributions throughout the Little Colorado River Plateau basin. Better information on several aspects of the groundwater flow system are needed to reduce uncertainty of the simulated system. Many areas lack documentation of the response of the groundwater system to changes in withdrawals and recharge. Data needed to define groundwater flow between vertically adjacent water-bearing units is lacking in many areas. Distributions of recharge along losing stream reaches are poorly defined. Extents of aquifers and alluvial lithologies are poorly defined in parts of the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins. Aquifer storage properties are poorly defined throughout most of the study area. Little data exist to define the hydrologic importance of geologic structures such as faults and fractures. Discharge of regional groundwater flow to the Verde River is difficult to identify in the Verde Valley sub-basin because of unknown contributions from deep percolation of excess surface water irrigation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2012

Preliminary assessment of sources of nitrogen in groundwater at a biosolids-application area near Deer Trail

Concentrations of dissolved nitrite plus nitrate increased fairly steadily in samples from four shallow groundwater monitoring wells after biosolids applications to nonirrigated farmland began in 1993. The U.S. Geological Survey began a preliminary assessment of sources of nitrogen in shallow groundwater at part of the biosolids-application area near Deer Trail, Colorado, in 2005 in cooperation with the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District. Possible nitrogen sources in the area include biosolids, animal manure, inorganic fertilizer, atmospheric deposition, and geologic materials (bedrock and soil). Biosolids from the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District plant in Denver and biosolids, cow manure, geologic materials (bedrock and soil), and groundwater from the study area were sampled to measure nitrogen content and nitrogen isotopic compositions of nitrate or total nitrogen. Biosolids also were leached, and the leachates were analyzed for nitrogen content and other concentrations. Geologic materials from the study area also were sampled to determine mineralogy. Estimates of nitrogen contributed from inorganic fertilizer and atmospheric deposition were calculated from other published reports. The nitrogen information from the study indicates that each of the sources contain sufficient nitrogen to potentially affect groundwater nitrate concentrations. Natural processes can transform the nitrogen in any of the sources to nitrate in the groundwater. Load calculations indicate that animal manure, inorganic fertilizer, or atmospheric deposition could have contributed the largest nitrogen load to the study area in the 13 years before biosolids applications began, but biosolids likely contributed the largest nitrogen load to the study area in the 13 years after biosolids applications began. Various approaches provided insights into sources of nitrate in the groundwater samples from 2005. The isotopic data indicate that, of the source materials considered, biosolids and (or) animal manure were the most likely sources of nitrate in the wells at the time of sampling (2005), and that inorganic fertilizer, atmospheric deposition, and geologic materials were not substantial sources of nitrate in the wells in 2005. The large total nitrogen content of the biosolids and animal-manure samples and biosolids leachates also indicates that the biosolids and animal manure had potential to leach nitrogen and produce large dissolved nitrate concentrations in groundwater. The available data, however, could not be used to distinguish between biosolids or manure as the dominant source of nitrate in the groundwater because the nitrogen isotopic composition of the two materials is similar. Major-ion data also could not be used to distinguish between biosolids or manure as the dominant source of nitrate in the groundwater because the major-ion composition (as well as the isotopic composition) of the two materials is similar. Without additional data, chloride/bromide mass ratios do not necessarily support or refute the hypothesis that biosolids and (or) animal manure were the primary sources of nitrate in water from the study-area wells in 2005. Concentrations of water-extractable nitrate in the soil indicate that biosolids could be an important source of nitrate in the groundwater recharge. Nitrogen inventories in the soil beneath biosolids-application areas and the nitrogen-input estimates for the study area both support the comparisons of isotopic composition, which indicate that some type of human waste (such as biosolids) and (or) animal manure was the source of nitrate in groundwater sampled from the wells in 2005. The nitrogen-load estimates considered with the nitrogen isotopic data and the soil-nitrogen inventories indicate that biosolids applications likely are a major source of nitrogen to the shallow groundwater at these monitoring wells.

Colorado↗