AER/AGS Special Report 112: Chapter 26: Status of Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping and Modelling Activities in the U.S. Geol

Home , Geologic modelling

Chapter 26: Status of Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping and Modelling Activities in the U.S. Geological Survey Donald Sweetkind1, Russell Graymer2, Debra Higley3, and Oliver Boyd4

1 U.S. Geological Survey, Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center, Denver Federal Center, Mail Stop 980 Denver, CO 80225 USA 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Minerals, Energy, and Geophysics Science Center, 345 Middlefield Road, Mail Stop 973 Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA 3 U.S. Geological Survey, Central Energy Resources Science Center, Denver Federal Center, Mail Stop 939 Denver, CO 80225 USA 4 U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards, Northwest Region, 1711 Illinois Street Golden CO 80401 USA

Sweetkind, D., Graymer, R., Higley, D., and Boyd, O. 2019. Status of three-dimensional geological mapping and modelling activities in the U.S. Geological Survey; Chapter 26 in 2019 Synopsis of Current Three-Dimensional Geological Mapping and Modelling in Geological Survey Organizations, K.E. MacCormack, R.C. Berg, H. Kessler, H.A.J. Russell, and L.H. Thorleifson (ed.), Alberta Energy Regulator / Alberta Geological Survey, AER/AGS Special Report 112, p. 278–289.

Introduction upon a similar status report of USGS rative work in the Water Mission 3D modelling activities of Jacobsen et Area, and the balance of the funding The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), al. (2011). supports work in the geological, bio- created in 1879, is the national geological, and geographic sciences and logical survey for the United States Organizational Structure information delivery. The USGS and the sole science agency within its and Business Model workforce is approximately 9,000 dis- cabinet-level bureau, the Department tributed in three large centers (Reston, oftheInterior.TheUSGShasabroad In 2010, the USGS was organized Virginia; Denver, Colorado; San mission, including: serving the Nation into major topics, or Mission Areas, Francisco Bay area, California) and in by providing reliable scientific infor- that were aligned with the broad sci- numerous smaller science centers mation to describe and understand the ence themes outlined in a 10-year Bu- across the 50 states (Jacobsen et al. Earth; minimize loss of life and prop- reau-level Science Strategy (U.S. 2011). erty from natural disasters; manage Geological Survey, 2007): Land Re- water, biological, energy, and mineral sources, Core Science Systems Scientific work is organized into resources; and enhance and protect (which includes the National Cooper- “projects” run by principal investiga- quality of life. USGS scientific activi- ative Geologic Mapping Program), tors (PIs) who have significant lati- ties are organized around major top- Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, tude in planning and conducting re- ics, or Mission Areas, aligned with Environmental Health, Natural Haz- search in accordance with Program- distinct science themes; three-dimen- ards, and Water Resources. At the level guidance, including acquisition sional (3D) modelling typically sup- same time, 10-year science strategies of the resources (e.g., equipment, ports research and project work were created for each of the USGS computers, software, and data) within a specific Mission Area. The Mission Areas and for the programs needed to carry out their studies. vastness, diversity, and complexity of focused on those topics (e.g., USGS 3D geological mapping efforts the geological landscape of the Evenson et al. 2013; Ferrero et al. typically occur on a project-by-pro- United States has resulted in the cre- 2013). ject basis, and 3D modelling activities ation of 3D geological framework are decentralized and spread across models that are local or regional in The annual USGS budget is approxi- USGS Mission Areas. The USGS scale; a National-scale 3D model is mately US$1 billion from federal ap- uses a myriad of 3D modelling and only beginning to evolve. This paper propriations. The bureau also receives visualization programs (Jacobsen et summarizes 3D geological modelling about US$500 million from outside al. 2011) due to the variety of 3D ap- at the USGS and does not discuss 3D entities such as other federal agencies, plications, the distributed nature of modelling that is conducted by other foreign governments, international scientific projects throughout USGS, Federal agencies, state geological sur- agencies, U.S. states, and local gov- and differences in scientific focus be- veys, academia, or industry within the ernment sources. More than half of tween Mission Areas. As a result, im- U.S. This paper updates and expands the outside funding supports collabo- plementing a single organization-wide

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 278 software platform is challenging and In areas of thick cover where bore- faces to help characterize complex perhaps not even desirable. hole data are sparse, much of the patterns of fault interactions and 3D region’s geology and mineral deformation (e.g., Plesch et al. 2007; Overview of 3D potential is poorly constrained and Nicholson et al. 2014). Crustal-scale Modelling Activities geophysical methods are a primary models for seismic hazard analysis in- means of developing a 3D subsurface corporate geology-based 3D seismic Within the Energy and Minerals Mis- representation. velocity models that are used to sion Area, a wide variety of 3D data model the propagation of seismic en- management, modelling, and visual- Within the Water Resources Mission ergy through the upper to middle ization tools are applied as part of re- Area, the USGS has conducted re- crust (e.g., McPhee et al. 2007, source assessments. In Energy, 3D gional hydrologic studies of principal Aagard et al. 2010). National scale geologic models are built as stand- aquifer systems (Figure 1) under the three-dimensional geophysical struc- alone research projects for reservoir Groundwater Resources Program ture based on knowledge of surface characterization and as geologic input (Reilly et al. 2008) and currently as and subsurface geologic variations to 4D pressure, volume, temperature part of the USGS National Water will assist with earthquake hazard risk models that are used in petroleum ge- Availability and Use Program assessment by supporting estimates of ology assessments to understand and (Evenson et al. 2018). Regional ground shaking in response to an delineate areas that are thermally ma- groundwater availability studies typi- earthquake (Boyd and Shah, 2018; ture for oil and gas generation, evalu- cally include a conceptualization of Shah and Boyd, 2018). For assess- ate timing of generation and migra- the hydrogeologic system, inventory ment of volcanic hazards, 3D models tion relative to tectonic events and of hydrologic data sets, and construc- of hydrothermal alteration and water trap formation, and determine vol- tion of a numerical simulation (e.g., content derived from airborne geo- umes of generated hydrocarbons for Faunt, 2009; Feinstein et al. 2010; physical data delineate zones suscep- each modelled petroleum source rock. Heilweil and Brooks, 2011; Brooks et tible to sector collapse of Cascade arc 3D data are released as grid files of al. 2014). Understanding of ground- volcanoes and subsequent destructive elevation and thickness, and 3D water flow systems is enhanced lahars (Finn et al. 2007; 2018) in ad- model files with model-viewing capa- through the development of 3D dition to mapping structure and bility (Higley et al. 2006; Higley, hydrogeologic framework models volume of volcanic products 2014; Hosford Schierer, 2007). Geo- produced as part of the regional study (Langenheim et al. 2016) and the thermal energy assessments increas- (e.g., Burns et al. 2011; Feinstein et magmatic system beneath Mono ingly use 3D geologic models in de- al. 2010) or created by the USGS Na- Basin (Peacock et al. 2015). veloping the structural framework to tional Cooperative Geologic Mapping locate intersections of faults at geo- Program or state geological surveys. Resources Allocated to thermal prospects. In Minerals, 3D These 3D framework models are pro- 3D Modelling Activities modelling includes 3D representation duced for regional water-availability of geophysically derived surfaces and assessments and are not intended to An estimated 50 to 100 people within forward modelling of geophysical be components of a national geologi- the USGS routinely or occasionally data to create 3D geologic models to cal model, yet are comparable in areal conduct geological 3D modelling ac- support mineral-resources assess- size to national-scale models pro- tivities. These scientists are dispersed ments and research. Recent emphasis duced by other national geological across the organization and 3D geo- on mineral commodities considered agencies (Figure 1; Table 1). At the logical mapping efforts occur on a critical to the economic and national groundwater basin scale, 3D model- project-by-project basis. A far greater security of the United States (Schulz ling activities focus on the thickness number of staff are able to visualize et al. 2017), particularly in areas bur- and extent of specific aquifers, the data in 3D, including the analysis and ied beneath glacial or Phanerozoic configuration of the basin, and the ge- use of airborne and ground-based cover, require extrapolating geologi- ometry of faults that affect the aqui- LiDAR and using animations, fly- cal mapping from the surface to fers (Pantea et al. 2011; Sweetkind, throughs, and data-discovery tools to depths greater than 1 km over large 2017; Page et al. 2018). help researchers conduct science and areas where little borehole informa- communicate results. tion exists. To extrapolate below Within the Hazards Mission Area, 3D ground, various geophysical datasets geologic modelling activities include Overview of Regional are integrated with surface geologic building geologically realistic fault- Geological Setting and borehole data to develop a 3D block models used for incorporating geologic model of the region (e.g., geology into hazard scenarios (e.g., The United States has a large variety Drenth et al. 2015; Finn et al. 2015). Phelps et al. 2008) and the develop- of geological terranes that record ment of crustal-scale 3D fault sur- more than 2 billion years of geologi-

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 279 Figure 1. Principal aquifers of the United States (after Reilly et al. 2008). Colored regions represent separate regional aquifer systems as described by Reilly et al. 2008; only aquifers discussed in text are labeled.

Table 1. Area of selected 3D hydrogeologic framework models, USGS Water Mission Area compared to the area of the UK National model

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 280 cal history. The complexity of U.S. (3) differences in the digital and lay- that help them meet their stewardship geology ranges from horizontal stack- out formats that are present in various responsibilities. Most USGS 3D geo- ing of sedimentary rocks in the Great State-managed collections of oil and logic framework models are used Plains, Colorado Plateau, and Coastal gas and water-well drillers’ records within the organization to support Plain Physiographic Provinces to and the need for hand entry of process and predictive models. Where compressional orogens of the Appala- scanned records into numerical for- models are built for outside entities, chians and Rocky Mountains Prov- mat. More general 3D modelling model extent and level of detail are inces to the complex overprinting of challenges include how to translate closely coordinated to meet the needs compressional, extensional, and trans- physical properties into meaningful of cooperators. The USGS takes ad- form tectonics of the Pacific Border geologic units (and vice versa), how vantage of cooperative research and Province of the western United States to incorporate uncertainty, and how to development agreements to collabo- and Alaska (King and Beikman, incorporate results of multiple rate with research institutions both 1974; Schruben et al. 1994; Reed et realizations and alternate models. within and outside the United States al. 2005a, b; Horton et al. 2017). (e.g., Berbesi et al. 2012). These varied geological terranes pres- 3D Modelling Approach ent a challenge to 3D modelling of Recent Jurisdictional- numerous stratigraphic units in diver- Most USGS 3D geologic framework Scale Case Studies gent, convergent, transform, and sta- models are deterministic models of geologic surfaces (Belcher and Showcasing Application ble cratonic settings. Surficial geolog- of 3D Models ical processes of the last several Sweetkind, 2010; Burns et al. 2011; million years have left variable un- Sweetkind, 2017) or surfaces and Case study 1: 3D framework consolidated deposits, including the bounding faults (Pantea et al. 2011; in Anadarko Basin petroleum voluminous deposition of glacial ma- Page et al. 2018; Phelps et al. 2008). assessment Some models use lithologic informa- terials in New England and the In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey tion from driller’s logs or are inter- northern conterminous United States (USGS) completed an assessment of preted from downhole electric logs to (Soller et al. 2012; Soller and Garrity, the undiscovered oil and gas resource develop 3D textural models of grain- 2018). potential of the Anadarko Basin Prov- size variability (Faunt, 2009, ince of western Oklahoma and Kan- Sweetkind et al. 2013; Wentworth et Data Sources sas, northern Texas, and southeastern al. 2015). A few stochastic geologic Colorado, covering an area of approx- Construction of 3D geologic frame- models have been created through imately 58,000 mi2 (150,200 km2) work models typically involves the geostatistical modelling of geologic (Higley, 2014). The assessment is use of data from geologic maps, cross and geophysical data (Phelps, 2016). based on analysis and modelling of sections, water well and oil and gas geologic elements including: hydro- wells, and surfaces developed from USGS 3D gravity models use gravity carbon source rocks; reservoir rock geophysical data (typically a depth- inversion and geologic constraints type, distribution, and quality; types to-pre-Cenozoic basement surface). from boreholes or seismic data to cre- and distribution of reservoir traps and Because of the expense in acquiring ate a structural elevation grid that has seals; and timing of petroleum gener- or obtaining data, seismic data are geologic meaning (e.g., Grauch and ation and migration and defining mi- less typically used, except where soci- Connell, 2013). 3D geologic frame- gration pathways (Higley, 2014). etal need demands specific knowl- work models can be especially tightly Stratigraphic units range in age from edge of the subsurface, such as in constrained when multiple geophysi- Precambrian to present; petroleum is seismic hazard studies (e.g., Wen- cal techniques (gravity, magnetic, produced from Cambrian through tworth et al. 2015). Geophysical data MT) are combined with borehole and Permian strata. Much of the produc- are generally developed in-house and rock property measurements (e.g., tion is reported as being commingled integrate existing datasets with Finn et al. 2015; Langenheim et al. from numerous formations that were collection of new data. 2016) deposited over broad age ranges; this Challenges faced by the USGS in cre- Clients requires modelling at the basin scale ating 3D models, particularly at the of the full thickness of geologic regional scale, include: (1) lack of Because of collection of long-term formations (Higley, 2014). seamless and consistent geologic map monitoring data, resource assess- To support the assessment, a 26-layer portrayal across different states at ments, and the national and interna- 3D geologic framework model was scales needed for model creation; (2) tional scope of its science, resource constructed that serves as the geomet- differences in regional naming con- and land management agencies use ric basis for petroleum system models ventions for geologic formations; and USGS science in developing policies

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 281 Figure 2. Perspective view from the southeast of a cutaway block model showing the 26 structural surfaces and vertical fault traces present in the 3-D geologic framework model of the Anadarko basin province (model of Higley, 2014). Fault plane colors range from light gray to black because of directional lighting of the model.

(Higley et al. 2014; Figure 2). Eleva- province (Figure 2; Higley et al. modelling software that supports tion, thickness, and fault data sources 2014). Model grid spacing was 1-km analysis petroleum migration path- for the 2D grids and 3D model in- with 601 cells in X-dimension and ways, time-temperature maturation clude formation tops from wells, con- 576 in Y-dimension. Volumes of units pathways in the basin, and modelling toured formation tops from propri- are defined and shown in Figure 2 as of hydrocarbon generation, migration, etary and published sources, and the space between (1) two geologic and accumulation through time outcrop/subcrop data from surface surfaces, (2) geologic surfaces and (Higley et al. 2006; Higley, 2014). geologic maps. Data files were edited fault planes, or (3) geologic surfaces However, formation tops grids and using 2-D GIS and 3D geologic mod- and model extents. Faults in the 3D associated data were used for other eling software to remove anomalies model were subdivided based upon assessment purposes including 1D such as location errors and incorrect whether they extended from Precam- burial history models and 2D cross formation-top elevations. 3D grids brian basement to the ground surface sectional models, such that it was were compared to published cross or crossed only some of the model more efficient to generate and edit sections and maps, and anomalous layers. Due to modeling and time layers in 2D GIS and 3D geologic surfaces were edited and regridded. A constraints, faults were designated as modelling software and import the re- 3D geologic framework model was vertical. sulting grids or the 3D geologic created by stacking the 26 strati- framework model into the 4D model- graphic surface grids and including Much of the petroleum assessment-re- ling platform (Higley et al. 2006; Precambrian fault surfaces from the lated modelling was conducted in 4D Higley, 2014).

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 282 Case study 2: 3D geological • Geologic data from five state geo- that represent the modelled top sur- models for regional logic maps integrated into a seam- face altitude and extent for each of groundwater availability less 1:500,000-scale geologic map the hydrogeologic units within the studies database. Geologic contacts were study area (Heilweil and Brooks, The USGS conducted a regional as- sampled at regularly spaced points 2011). sessment of groundwater availability withinaGISandthenassignedco- The 3D geologic framework was the of the Great Basin carbonate and allu- ordinate locations from the map primary geologic input into a steady- vial aquifer system (GBCAAS) as base and elevations from a digital state numerical groundwater flow part of a U.S. Geological Survey Na- elevation model. The geologic model of the aquifer system (Brooks tional Water Census Initiative to eval- mapalsoprovidedlocationof et al. 2014). Explicit incorporation of uate the nation’s groundwater avail- faults and caldera boundaries. a detailed three-dimensional hydro- ability (Heilweil and Brooks, 2011; • Stratigraphic log data from 441 geologic framework into the numeri- Brooks et al. 2014). Located within wells compiled from oil and gas, cal simulation allowed evaluation and the Basin and Range Physiographic mining, water-well, and other re- calibration of complex hydrogeologic Province, the aquifer system covers cords; and hydrologic elements, incorpo- an area of approximately 110,000 mi2 • Geologic contacts digitized from rated a conceptual understanding of (285,000 km2) across five states, pre- 245 cross sections compiled from an interconnected groundwater sys- dominantly in eastern Nevada and 99 separate sources; tem throughout the region, and al- western Utah (Figure 1) and includes • Elevation data of geologic surfaces lowed an evaluation of inter-basin the Basin and Range carbonate-rock from an existing 27-layer 3D- bedrock hydraulic connectivity and aquifers, the southern Nevada volca- hydrogeologic framework for part regional groundwater flow directions. nic-rock aquifers and much of the Ba- of the study area; and sin and Range basin-fill aquifers • A gridded surface defining depth Case study 3: 3D models for (Reilly et al. 2008). Diverse sedimen- to top of consolidated rock created seismic hazard analysis, tary units of the GBCAAS study area by combining the results of five from local to National scale are grouped into hydrogeologic units regional and subregional gravity- Starting in 2007, the USGS developed (HGUs) that are inferred to have rea- based surveys. The resulting sur- a 3D fault framework model of the sonably distinct hydrologic properties face defines both the top of pre- San Francisco Bay area, California due to their physical characteristics. Cenozoic rocks and the base of the (Figure 4) as a part of the larger effort These HGUs are commonly disrupted Cenozoic sedimentary basin-fill to develop a statewide fault model as by thrust, strike-slip, and normal deposits and volcanic rocks. a primary data set for the Uniform faults with large displacement, and California Earthquake Rupture Fore- locally affected by caldera formation. The top elevations of the HGU surfaces were modelled from the input cast, version 3 (UCERF3; Field et al. A three-dimensional hydrogeologic data using a 1 mi2 (2.59 km2) grid cell 2014), which “…provides authorita- framework (3D HFM; Figure 3) was size. In the hydrogeologic framework, tive estimates of the magnitude, loca- constructed that defines the physical individual HGUs are represented by tion, and time-averaged frequency of geometry and rock types through an interpolated gridded surface of the potentially damaging earthquakes in which groundwater moves (Heilweil top altitude of each HGU. The HGU California.” UCERF3 is used widely and Brooks, 2011). The 3D HFM surfaces were combined and stacked, in California for seismic hazard anal- consists of nine HGUs with distinct resulting in the 3D-hydrogeologic yses, including by the California physical and hydraulic properties: framework (Figure 3). Major fault Earthquake Authority in setting insur- three units representing Cenozoic ba- zones and caldera margins were in- ance rates to reflect localized actual sin-filling sedimentary and volcanic corporated as vertical boundaries to risk. rocks and six units representing con- define abrupt changes in unit eleva- The San Francisco Bay Area 3D fault solidated Mesozoic and Paleozoic tion and as structural control on the model was built using the following bedrock and intrusive rocks hydrogeology. Interpolation of spatial steps: (Figure 3). The framework was built data points into grids representing the 1) The regionally most important by extracting and combining a variety HGU surfaces was processed using faults were selected, and their of data, including: 3D modelling software, and further traces were simplified from geo- • Land-surface elevation from seam- modification and interpretation of the logic maps of the region (Graymer less 1:24,000-scale National Ele- gridded HGU surfaces was completed et al. 2006a; 2006b). vation Data (NED) digital eleva- using geographic information system tion models (DEM); (GIS) software. The model was released as a series of GIS raster files

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 283 Figure 3. Perspective view of the upper surface of the 3D geologic framework model for the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system (from Heilweil and Brooks, 2011). The colored units are nine hydrogeologic units that are stacked in 3D space.

2) Surface traces were projected onto relocated hypocenters; (b) gravity pure strike-slip, vertical; pure re- a digital elevation model (Figure and aeromagnetic data; (c) fault verse slip, 60° dip; oblique reverse 4). dip as reflected by the effect of to- slip, 75° dip). 3) Subsurface projection of faults pography on the fault trace; and These data sets and interpretations was constrained by, in order of (d) generic fault dip assigned were converted into a suite of 3D preference: (a) double-difference based on relative fault offset (e.g. points reflecting the surface trace and

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 284 Figure 4. View from above of the San Francisco Bay region 3D fault framework. Various colors represent individual modelled fault planes, of which only the major faults are labeled.

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 285 Figure 5. Perspective view from the southwest of a cutaway block model showing the 3D data points (yellow cubes) associated with the Zayante fault. The regularly spaced points are from structure contour data, the closely spaced points in the un- dulating trend represent the surface trace projected onto the Earth’s surface, represented by a digital elevation model. structure contours at depth (Figure 5). the subsurface, and therefore can ac- and numerical earthquake simulations The 3D fault surface was generated commodate longer fault ruptures and (Aagaard et al, 2010; Stephenson et using a least tension algorithm to fit potentially larger earthquakes. al, 2017). Nationally, the USGS is the fault to the 3D points. A spatial building a crustal-scale model that in- hierarchy was defined to allow the Seismic hazard assessments also de- cludes development of a multi-lay- various faults to be combined into a pend on an accurate prediction of ered 3D geologic framework model, fault framework model. earthquake ground shaking, which in application of a physical theoretical turn depends on knowledge of three- foundation to couple geology and A 3D fault framework is important to dimensional variations in density, geophysical parameters and use of earthquake studies in a number of seismic velocity, and attenuation. Ex- measured geophysical data for cali- ways. In general, the 3D geometry of amples from the San Bernardino ba- bration (Boyd and Shah, 2018). The a fault network affects how the faults sin in southern California (Graves and framework model is intended to be in- slip as a result of the regional tectonic Wald, 2004) and the Santa Rosa plain ternally consistent and seamless on a stress, and thus the 3D geometry is in the northern San Francisco Bay national scale, defined on a 1-km incorporated into source characteriza- area (McPhee et al. 2007) highlight grid, and integrate results of previous tion as well as geodetic models of slip the importance of 3D basin geometry studies including maps of surficial rates. The 3D fault framework in the in producing damaging ground mo- porosity, surface and subsurface li- San Francisco Bay region also reveals tions. Local to regional 3D geologic thology (Horton et al. 2017), and the faults without apparent surface con- models have been constructed as the depths to bedrock (Shah and Boyd, nection that are directly connected in foundation to seismic velocity models

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 286 2018), crystalline basement or seismic tions that could support framework ing for the inclusion of increasingly equivalent, lower crust, and Moho. model development; (3) guidance on complex 3D geologic frameworks in database standards for 3D data; (4) regional and local-scale numerical A calibrated national crustal model guidance on archiving procedures for models of hydrologic processes. De- can be used to assess and apply pa- developed 3D models; and (5) Na- velopment of 3D geologic frame- rameters currently used to predict tional-scale efforts to catalog and works will increasingly become earthquake ground motions including maintain already-developed 3D needed at the energy-water nexus, shear-wave velocity parameters that framework models, beyond releasing both as a means of evaluating poten- roughly correlate to the depths to bed- models in publications. tial interactions between aquifer sys- rock and basement (Shah and Boyd, tems and shallow producing regions 2018). The model could also be used Lessons Learned of oil and gas fields, and to evaluate to develop new parameters with possible interaction between ground- greater predictive power that can be The USGS ScienceBase repository water aquifers and injection of applied in national seismic hazard as- (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/ fracking liquids and produced waters. sessments (Petersen et al. 2015). ) is being used as a catalog and data Societal pressure for accurate and store to track projects and their deliv- precise hazard and risk assessment in Current Challenges erables including publications, mod- populated areas will continue to els, and datasets. Many of the model Current challenges are in part related demand higher-resolution 3D and data outcomes of focus area and framework models and closer to the broad overall mission of the topical studies are available directly USGS and the focused nature of indi- integration with physical properties from ScienceBase, whereas reports modelling. vidual Mission Areas within the orga- and data stored elsewhere are avail- nization, which lead to decentralized able through links cataloged in The National Cooperative Geologic 3D modelling activities. Pockets of ScienceBase. Mapping Program has recently up- 3D modelling expertise develop on a dated its strategic vision to focus on project-by-project basis, but there Next Steps the accelerated development of re- may not be enough knowledge trans- gional-scale geologic maps and the fer between projects. Across the The continued need for national-scale development of 3D geologic frame- USGS individual researchers and research and assessment of energy, works. To this end, the Program has teams acquire 3D technologies with minerals, geologic hazards, and water started several new projects that are little to no knowledge or bureau-level resources will continue to drive the regional in scope and explicitly in- coordination of other similar efforts. development of 3D geologic frame- clude 3D frameworks, for example, a Although projects and Mission Areas work models and their link to numeri- planned regional mapping transect in add 3D applications as analysis tools, cal process models. Energy resource the US Southwest and merging of there are few forums for sharing assessments will continue to develop multiple 3D models in central and ideas, data, products, and knowledge capabilities to understand basin strati- northern California. Knowledge of emerging technologies. Although graphic, structural, and thermal devel- gained from these projects will in- cost efficiencies could perhaps be re- opment and use developed frame- form strategies for resolving current alized using a standardized, organiza- works as part of hydrocarbon challenges as various USGS science tion-wide modelling platform, the use maturation and stratigraphic centers look to this Program and the of multiple software platforms in gen- backstripping analyses as part of ba- Core System Science mission area for eral supports the diverse needs of the sin-scale petroleum assessments. In continued guidance. Mission Areas and, in and of itself, is the Minerals realm, recent emphasis not a major challenge. The bigger on availability of critical minerals for References challenge is in developing datasets the Nation requires the evaluation of that are accessible, transferrable and undiscovered resources, particularly Aagaard, B.T., R. W. Graves, D.P. importable into multiple software beneath Quaternary and Phanerozoic Schwartz, D.A. Ponce, and R.W. Graymer. 2010. Ground-motion mod- platforms. cover. Such evaluations rely on the eling of Hayward fault scenario earth- use of geophysical methods, both to quakes, Part I, Construction of the At the National level, no Bureau-level map subsurface features in 3D and to suite of scenarios: Bulletin of the Seis- guidance or infrastructure supports forward-model geophysical anomalies mological Society of America, v. the following: (1) development of re- in terms of geology. In the Water Mis- 100(6), p. 2927-2944. gional or National-scale drill-hole da- sion Area, numerical groundwater Belcher, W.R., and D.S. Sweetkind, eds. tabases in a standard format; (2) de- models will continue to increase in 2010. Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Nevada and Cali- velopment of national databases of sophistication as software platforms gravity, magnetic, or seismic observa- fornia—Hydrogeologic framework and computing power evolve, allow- and transient groundwater flow model:

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 287 U.S. Geological Survey Professional ence to the Nation: U.S. Geological the Hector Mine, California, earth- Paper 1711, 398 p. Survey Circular 1383–G, 49 p. quake: Bulletin of the Seismological Berbesi, L.A., R. di Primio, Z. Anka, B. Faunt, C.C., ed. 2009. Groundwater Avail- Society of America, v. 94, p. 131-146. Horsfield, D.K. Higley. 2012. Source ability of the Central Valley Aquifer, Graymer, R.W., W. Bryant, C.A. McCabe, rock contributions to the Lower Creta- California: U.S. Geological Survey S. Hecker, and C.S. Prentice. 2006a. ceous heavy oil accumulations in Al- Professional Paper 1766, 225 p. Map of Quaternary-active faults in the berta—a basin modeling study: Feinstein, D.T., R.J. Hunt, and H.W. San Francisco Bay region: U.S. Geo- American Association of Petroleum Reeves. 2010. Regional groundwater- logical Survey Scientific Investiga- Geologists Bulletin v. 96, no. 7, p. flow model of the Lake Michigan Ba- tions Map, SIM-2919, 1 sheet, scale 1211-1234. sin in support of Great Lakes Basin 1:275,000. Boyd, O., and A.K. Shah. 2018. National water availability and use studies: U.S. Graymer, R.W., B.C. Moring, G.J. 3-D geology—Building a USGS Na- Geological Survey Scientific Investi- Saucedo, C.M. Wentworth, E.E. tional Crustal Model—Theoretical gations Report 2010–5109, 379 p. Brabb, and K.L. Knudsen. 2006b. foundation, inputs, and calibration, in Ferrero, R.C., J.J. Kolak, D.J. Bills, Z.H. Geologic map of the San Francisco L.H. Thorleifson, ed., Geologic Map- Bowen, D.J. Codier, T.J. Gallegos, J.R. Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey ping Forum 2018 abstracts—Minneap- Hein, K.D. Kelley, P.H. Nelson, V.F. Scientific Investigations Map, SIM- olis, Minn., March 27–29, 2018: Nuccio, J.M. Schmidt, and R.R. Seal. 2918, 1 sheet, scale 1:275,000. Minnesota Geological Survey Open 2013. U.S. Geological Survey energy Heilweil, V.M., and L.E. Brooks, eds. File Report OFR–18–1, p. 13–14. and minerals science strategy—A re- 2011. Conceptual model of the Great http://hdl.handle.net/11299/194852. source lifecycle approach: U.S. Geo- Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer Brooks, L.E., M.D. Masbruch, D.S. logical Survey Circular 1383–D, 37 p. system: U.S. Geological Survey Scien- Sweetkind, and S.G. Buto. 2014. Field, E.H., and 18 others. 2014. Uniform tific Investigations Report 2010-5193, Steady-state numerical groundwater California Earthquake Rupture Fore- 191 p. flow model of the Great Basin carbon- cast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time- Higley, D.K., compiler, 2014, Petroleum ate and alluvial aquifer system: U.S. independent model: Bulletin of the systems and assessment of undiscov- Geological Survey Scientific Investi- Seismological Society of America, v. ered oil and gas in the Anadarko Basin gations Report 2014-5213, 124 p., 2 104, p. 1122-1180. Province, Colorado, Kansas, pl. Finn, C.A., P.A. Bedrosian, J.C. Cole, T.D. Oklahoma, and Texas—USGS Prov- Burns, E.R., D.S. Morgan, R.S. Peavler, Khoza, and S.J. Webb. 2015. Mapping ince 58: U.S. Geological Survey Digi- and S.C. Kahle. 2011. Three-dimen- the extent of the Northern Lobe of the tal Data Series DDS–69–EE, 327 p., 8 sional model of the geologic frame- Bushveld layered mafic intrusion from pls. work for the Columbia Plateau geophysical data: Precambrian Re- Higley, D.K., N.J. Gianoutsos, M.P. Regional Aquifer System, Idaho, Ore- search, v. 268, 279-294. Pantea, and S.M. Strickland. 2014. gon, and Washington: U.S. Geological Precambrian to ground surface grid Survey Scientific Investigations Re- Finn, C.A., Maryla Deszcz-Pan, E.D. An- derson, and D.A. John, 2007. Three- cell maps and 3-D model of the port 2010-5246, 44 p. in dimensional geophysical mapping of Anadarko Basin Province, chap. 13, Drenth, B.J., R.R. Anderson, K.J. Schulz, rock alteration and water content at D.K. Higley, compiler, Petroleum sys- J.M. Feinberg, V.W. Chandler, and Mount Adams, Washington: Implica- tems and assessment of undiscovered W.F. Cannon. 2015. What lies be- tions for lahar hazards: Journal of oil and gas in the Anadarko Basin neath—Geophysical mapping of a Geophysical Research, v. 112, Province, Colorado, Kansas, concealed Precambrian intrusive com- B10204, doi:10.1029/2006JB004783. Oklahoma, and Texas—USGS Prov- plex along the Iowa-Minnesota border: ince 58: U.S. Geological Survey Digi- Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. Finn, C.A., M. Deszcz-Pan, J.L. Ball, B.J. tal Data Series DDS–69–EE, 8 p. 52, p. 279-293. Bloss, and B.J. Minsley. 2018. Three- dimensional geophysical mapping of Higley, D.K., M. Lewan, L.N.R. Roberts, Evenson, E.J., S.A. Jones, N.L. Barber, shallow water saturated altered rocks and M.E. Henry. 2006. Petroleum sys- P.M. Barlow, D.L. Blodgett, B.W. at Mount Baker, Washington— Impli- tem modeling capabilities for use in oil Bruce, K. Douglas-Mankin, W.H. cations for slope stability: Journal of and gas resource assessments: U.S. Farmer, J.M. Fischer, W.B. Hughes, Volcanology and Geothermal Re- Geological Survey Open-File Report J.G. Kennen, J.E. Kiang, M.A. search, v. 357, p. 261-275. 2006-1024, 22 p. Maupin, H.W. Reeves, G.B. Senay, J.S. Horton, J.D., C.A. San Juan, and D.B. Stanton, C.R. Wagner, and J.T. Wilson. Grauch, V.J.S., and S.D. Connell. 2013. New perspectives on the geometry of Stoeser. 2017. The State Geologic Map 2018. Continuing progress toward a Compilation (SGMC) geodatabase of national assessment of water availabil- the Albuquerque Basin, Rio Grande rift, New Mexico—Insights from geo- the conterminous United States: U.S. ity and use: U.S. Geological Survey Geological Survey Data Series 1052, Circular 1440, 64 p. physical models of rift-fill thickness, in M.R. Hudson and V.J.S. Grauch, 46 p. Evenson, E.J., R.C. Orndorff, C.D. Blome, eds., New Perspectives on Rio Grande Hosford Scheirer, A., ed. 2007. Petroleum J.K. Böhlke, P.K. Hershberger, V.E. Rift Basins—From Tectonics to systems and geologic assessment of oil Langenheim, G.J. McCabe, S.E. Groundwater: Geological Society of and gas in the San Joaquin Basin Prov- Morlock, H.W. Reeves, J.P. Verdin, America Special Paper 494, p. 427– ince, California: U.S. Geological Sur- H.S. Weyers, and T.M. Wood. 2013. 462. vey Professional Paper 1713, 31 U.S. Geological Survey water science chapters. strategy—Observing, understanding, Graves, R.W., and D.J. Wald, 2004. Ob- predicting, and delivering water sci- served and simulated ground motions Jacobsen, L.J., P.D. Glynn, G.A. Phelps, in the San Bernardino basin region for R.C. Orndorff, G.W. Bawden, and

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 288 V.J.S. Grauch. 2011. U.S. Geological Peacock, J.R., M.T. Mangan, D. McPhee, ply: U.S. Geological Survey Profes- Survey—A synopsis of three-dimen- and D. A. Ponce. 2015. Imaging the sional Paper 1802, 797 p. in sional modeling, R.C. Berg, S.J. magmatic system of Mono Basin, Cal- Shah, A.K, and O.S. Boyd. 2018. Depth to Mathers, H. Kessler, and D.A. Keefer, ifornia, with magnetotellurics in three basement and thickness of unconsoli- eds., Synopsis of current three-dimen- dimensions: Journal of Geophysical dated sediments for the western United sional modeling in geological survey Research, Solid Earth, v. 120, p. 7273– States—Initial estimates for layers of organizations: Illinois State Geological 7289 the U.S. Geological Survey National Survey Circular 578, p. 69–79. Petersen, M.D., M.P. Moschetti, P.M. Pow- Crustal Model: U.S. Geological Sur- King, P.B., and H.M. Beikman. 1974, Ex- ers, C.S. Mueller, K.M. Haller, A.D. vey Open-File Report 2018–1115, 13 planatory text to accompany the geo- Frankel, Y. Zeng, S. Rezaeian, S.C. p. logic map of the United States: U.S. Harmsen, O.S. Boyd, N. Field, R. Soller, D.R., and C.P. Garrity. 2018. Qua- Geological Survey Professional Paper Chen, K.S. Rukstales, N. Luco, R.L. ternary sediment thickness and bed- 901, 40 p. Wheeler, R.A. Williams, and A.H. rock topography of the glaciated Langenheim, V.E., R.C. Jachens, L.J.P. Olsen. 2015. The 2014 United States United States east of the Rocky Moun- Muffler, and M.A. Clynne. 2016. Im- national seismic hazard model: Earth- tains: U.S. Geological Survey Scien- plications for the structure of the Hat quake Spectra, v. 31, (S1), p. S1–S30. tific Investigations Map 3392, 2 Creek fault and transfer of right-lateral Phelps, G. 2016. Forward modeling of sheets, scale 1:5,000,000. shear from the Walker Lane north of gravity data using geostatistically gen- Soller, D.R., P.H. Packard, and C.P. Lassen Peak, northern California, from erated subsurface density variations: Garrity. 2012. Database for USGS gravity and magnetic data: Geosphere, Geophysics, v. 81(5), p. G81-G94. Map I-1970—Map showing the thick- v. 12, no. 3, p. 790–808. Phelps, G.A., R.W. Graymer, R.C. Jachens, ness and character of Quaternary sedi- Mathers, S.J., R.L. Terrington, C.N. Wa- D.A. Ponce, R.W. Simpson, and C.M. ments in the glaciated United States ters, and A.G. Leslie. 2014. GB3-D – a Wentworth. 2008. Three-dimensional east of the Rocky Mountains: U.S. framework for the bedrock geology of geologic map of the Hayward Fault Geological Survey Data Series 656. Great Britain: Geoscience Data Jour- zone, San Francisco Bay region, Cali- Stephenson, W.J., N.G. Reitman, and S.J. nal, v. 1, p. 30–42. fornia: U.S. Geological Survey Scien- Angster. 2017. P- and S-wave velocity McPhee, D.K., V.E. Langenheim, S. tific Investigations Map 3045. models incorporating the Cascadia Hartzell, R.J. McLaughlin, B.T. Plesch, A. and 27 others. 2007. Commu- subduction zone for 3D earthquake Aagaard, R.C. Jachens, and C. nity Fault Model (CFM) for Southern ground motion simulations, version McCabe. 2007. Basin structure be- California: Bulletin of the Seismologi- 1.6—Update for Open-File Report neath the Santa Rosa Plain, Northern cal Society of America, v. 97, No. 6, p. 2007–1348: U.S. Geological Survey California— Implications for damage 1793–1802. Open-File Report 2017–1152, 17 p. caused by the 1969 Santa Rosa and Reed, J.C., Jr., J.O. Wheeler, and B.E. Sweetkind, D.S. 2017. Three-dimensional 1906 San Francisco earthquakes: Bul- Tucholke. 2005a. Geologic map of hydrogeologic framework model of letin of the Seismological Society of North America: Boulder, Colo., Geo- the Rio Grande transboundary region America, v. 97, no. 5, p. 1449–1457. logical Society of America, Decade of of New Mexico and Texas, USA, and Nicholson, C., A. Plesch, C.C. Sorlien, North American Geology, 3 sheets, northern Chihuahua, Mexico: U.S. J.H. Shaw, and E. Hauksson. 2014. scale 1:5,000,000. Geological Survey Scientific Investi- The SCEC 3-D Community Fault Reed, J.C., Jr., J.O. Wheeler, and B.E. gations Report 2017-5060, 49 p. Model (CFM Version 5.0): An updated Tucholke. 2005b. Geologic map of Sweetkind, D.S., C.C. Faunt, and R.T. and expanded fault set of oblique North America—Perspectives and ex- Hanson. 2013. Construction of 3-D crustal deformation and complex fault planation: Boulder, Colo., Geological geologic framework and textural mod- interaction for southern California. Society of America, Decade of North els for Cuyama Valley groundwater Eos (Transactions of AGU), v. 95(52), American Geology, 28 p. basin, California: U.S. Geological Sur- T31B-4585. Reilly, T.E., K.F. Dennehy, W.M. Alley, vey Scientific Investigations Report Page, W.R., M.W. Bultman, D.P. Van Sis- and W.L. Cunningham. 2008. Ground- 2013–5127, 46 p. tine, C.M. Menges, F. Gray, and M.P. water availability in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Facing To- Pantea. 2018. Geologic framework and U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1323, morrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geologi- hydrogeology of the Rio Rico and 70 p. cal Survey Science in the Decade Nogales 7.5’ quadrangles, upper Santa Schruben, P.G., R.E. Arndt, and W.J. 2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Cruz Basin, Arizona, with three-di- Circular 1309, 69 p. mensional hydrogeologic model: U.S. Bawiec. 1994. Geology of the conter- Geological Survey Scientific Investi- minous United States at 1:2,500,000 Wentworth, C.M., R.C. Jachens, R.A. Wil- gations Report 2018–5062, 34 p. Scale—A digital representation of the liams, J.C. Tinsley, and R.T. Hanson. 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman 2015. Physical subdivision and de- Pantea, M.P., M.R. Hudson, V.J.S. Grauch, map: U.S. Geological Survey Digital scription of the water-bearing sedi- and S.A. Minor. 2011. Three-dimen- Data Series 11, Release 2. ments of the Santa Clara Valley, sional geologic model of the south- California: U.S. Geological Survey eastern Española Basin, Santa Fe Schulz, K.J., J.H. DeYoung, Jr., R.R. Seal, II, and D.C. Bradley, eds. 2017. Criti- Scientific Investigations Report 2015– County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 5017, 73 p., 2 plates. Survey Scientific Investigations Re- cal mineral resources of the United port 2011–5025, 17 p. States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future sup-

AER/AGS Special Report 112 • 289