Geology topics

Research about Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Significance of northeast-trending features in Canada Basin, Arctic Ocean

Synthesis of seismic velocity, potential field, and geological data from Canada Basin and its surrounding continental margins suggests that a northeast-trending structural fabric has influenced the origin, evolution, and current tectonics of the basin. This structural fabric has a crustal origin, based on the persistence of these trends in upward continuation of total magnetic intensity data and vertical derivative analysis of free-air gravity data. Three subparallel northeast-trending features are described. Northwind Escarpment, bounding the east side of the Chukchi Borderland, extends ∼600 km and separates continental crust of Northwind Ridge from high-velocity transitional crust in Canada Basin. A second, shorter northeast-trending zone extends ∼300 km in northern Canada Basin and separates inferred continental crust of Sever Spur from magmatically intruded crust of the High Arctic Large Igneous Province. A third northeast-trending feature, here called the Alaska-Prince Patrick magnetic lineament (APPL) is inferred from magnetic data and its larger regional geologic setting. Analysis of these three features suggests strike slip or transtensional deformation played a role in the opening of Canada Basin. These features can be explained by initial Jurassic-Early Cretaceous strike slip deformation (phase 1) followed in the Early Cretaceous (∼134 to ∼124 Ma) by rotation of Arctic Alaska with seafloor spreading orthogonal to the fossil spreading axis preserved in the central Canada Basin (phase 2). In this model, the Chukchi Borderland is part of Arctic Alaska.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

Polar Bears

Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) are hunted throughout most of their range. In addition to hunting polar bears of the Beaufort Sea region are exposed to mineral and petroleum extraction and related human activities such as shipping road-building, and seismic testing (Stirling 1990). Little was known at the start of this project about how polar bears move about in their environment, and although it was understood that many bears travel across political borders, the boundaries of populations had not been delineated (Amstrup 1986, Amstrup et al. 1986, Amstrup and DeMaster 1988, Garner et al. 1994, Amstrup 1995, Amstrup et al. 1995, Amstrup 2000). As human populations increase and demands for polar bears and other arctic resources escalate, managers must know the sizes and distributions of the polar bear populations. Resource managers also need reliable estimates of breeding rates, reproductive intervals, litter sizes, and survival of young and adults. Our objectives for this research were 1) to determine the seasonal and annual movements of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea, 2) to define the boundaries of the population(s) using this region, 3) to determine the size and status of the Beaufort Sea polar bear population, and 4) to establish reproduction and survival rates (Amstrup 2000).

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

Snow geese

Part of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, is used as an autumn staging area by lesser snow geese ( Chen caerulescens caerulescens ) from the Western Canadian Arctic population (hereafter called the Western Arctic population). There were approximately 200,000 breeding adults in the Western Arctic population through the mid-1980s (Johnson and Herter 1989), but the population has recently increased to about 500,000 breeding adults (Kerbes et al. 1999). Early in their autumn migration, adult and juvenile snow geese from the Western Arctic population feed intensively while staging on the Beaufort Sea coastal plain in Canada and Alaska to build fat reserves needed for migration. Aerial censuses from 1973 to 1985 indicated that up to 600,000 adult and juvenile snow geese used the coastal plain for 2-4 weeks in late August until mid-September (Oates et al. 1987). We studied annual variation in numbers and spatial distribution of snow geese that staged on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

Forage quantity and quality

The Porcupine caribou herd has traditionally used the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, for calving. Availability of nutritious forage has been hypothesized as one of the reasons the Porcupine caribou herd migrates hundreds of kilometers to reach the coastal plain for calving (Kuropat and Bryant 1980, Russell et al. 1993). Forage quantity and quality and the chronology of snowmelt (which determines availability and phenological stages of forage) have been suggested as important habitat attributes that lead calving caribou to select one area over another (Lent 1980, White and Trudell 1980, Eastland et al. 1989). A major question when considering the impact of petroleum development is whether potential displacement of the caribou from the 1002 Area to alternate calving habitat will limit access to high quantity and quality forage. Our study had the following objectives: 1) quantify snowmelt patterns by area; 2) quantify relationships among phenology, biomass, and nutrient content of principal forage species by vegetation type; and 3) determine if traditional concentrated calving areas differ from adjacent areas with lower calving densities in terms of vegetation characteristics.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

Predators

Calving caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) of the Central Arctic herd, Alaska, have avoided the infrastructure associated with the complex of petroleum development areas from Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk (Cameron et al. 1992, Nellemann and Cameron 1998, and Section 4 of this document). Calving females of the Porcupine caribou herd may similarly avoid any oil field roads and pipelines developed in areas traditionally used during the calving and post-calving periods. This may displace the caribou females and calves to areas east and south of the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Increased calf mortality could occur if calving caribou are displaced into areas that have a higher density of predators, higher rates of predation, or where a higher proportion of the predators regularly use caribou as a food source (Whitten et al. 1992). Our study assessed predation risks to caribou calving in the 1002 Area versus calving in potential displacement areas. Due to funding constraints, our research focused on grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ), with wolves (Camus lupus) and golden eagles ( Aquila chrysaetos ) receiving only cursory attention. Our research objectives were 1) to compare relative abundance of predators within the 1002 Area with that in adjacent peripheral areas, 2) to determine factors affecting predator abundance on the calving grounds, and 3) to quantify the use of caribou as a food source for predators and the importance of caribou to the productivity of predator populations using the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

The central arctic caribou herd

From the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s, use of calving and summer habitats by Central Arctic herd caribou ( Rangifer tarandus granti ) declined near petroleum development infrastructure on Alaska's arctic coastal plain (Cameron et al. 1979; Cameron and Whitten 1980, Smith and Cameron 1983. Whitten and Cameron 1983a, 1985: Dau and Cameron 1986). With surface development continuing to expand westward from the Prudhoe Bay petroleum development area (Fig. 4.1), concerns arose that the resultant cumulative losses of habitat would eventually reduce productivity of the caribou herd. Specifically, reduced access of adult females to preferred foraging areas might adversely affect growth and fattening (Elison et al. 1986. Clough et al. 1987), in turn depressing calf production (Dauphiné 1976, Thomas 1982, Reimers 1983, White 1983, Eloranta and Nieminen 1986. Lenvik et al. 1988, Thomas and Kiliaan 1991) and survival (Haukioja and Salovaara 1978, Rognmo et al. 1983, Skogland 1984, Eloranta and Nieminen 1986, Adamczewski et al. 1987). Those concerns, though justified in theory, lacked empirical support. With industrial development in arctic Alaska virtually unprecedented, there was little basis for predicting the extent and duration of habitat loss, much less the secondary short- and long-term effects on the well-being of a particular caribou herd. Furthermore, despite a general acceptance that body condition and fecundity of the females are functionally related for reindeer and caribou, it seemed unlikely that any single model would apply to all subspecies of Rangifer , and perhaps not even within a subspecies in different geographic regions. We therefore lacked a complete understanding of the behavioral responses of arctic caribou to industrial development, the manner in which access to habitats might be affected, and how changes in habitat use might translate into measurable effects on fecundity and herd growth rate. Our study addressed the following objectives: 1) estimate variation in the size and productivity of the Central Arctic herd; 2) estimate changes in the distribution and movements of Central Arctic herd caribou in relation to the oil field development; 3) estimate the relationships between body condition and reproductive performance of female Central Arctic herd caribou, and 4) compare the body condition, reproductive success, and offspring survival of females under disturbance-free conditions (i.e., east of the Sagavanirktok River) with the status of those exposed to petroleum-related development (i.e., west of the Sagavanirktok River).

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

Muskoxen

Muskoxen ( Ovibos moschatus ) disappeared from Alaska in the late 1800s, but returned to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when animals were reestablished into areas of former range in 1969-1970 (Klein 1988). Released at Barter Island (Kaktovik) and the Kavik River, muskoxen initially moved into regions that encompassed the 1002 Area on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. From 1974 to 1986 the muskox population grew rapidly. By 1987, however, numbers declined in the regions that they had first occupied (Reynolds 1998 a ). Petroleum exploration and development could occur in muskox habitat in the 1002 Area of the Arctic Refuge. Status of the muskox population and factors related to trends in local abundance need to be determined if changes resulting from natural processes are to be separated from those that might result if industrial development is permitted in the Arctic Refuge. We developed a study with the following objectives to understand the dynamics of the muskox population in and near the 1002 Area of the Arctic Refuge: 1) determine abundance and rates of population increase, production, and survival; 2) document changes in population distribution over time, and 3) evaluate factors associated with changes in the number of muskoxen.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗

USGS2002

Arctic Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife research summaries

In 1980, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it also mandated a study of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were also to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. Results of these studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress. In 1987, the Department of the Interior published the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment - Report and Recommendations to the Congress of the United States and Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report to Congress identified the potential for oil and gas production (updated* most recently by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2001), described the biological resources, and evaluated the potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources. The 1987 report analyzed the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from wilderness designation to opening the entire area to lease for oil and gas developement. The report's summary recommended opening the 1002 Area to an orderly oil and gas leasing program, but cautioned that adverse effects to some wildlife populations were possible. Congress did not act on this recommendation nor any other alternative for the 1002 Area, and scientists continued studies of key wildlife species and habitats on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge and surrounding areas. This report contains updated summaries of those scientific investigations of caribou, muskoxen, predators (grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles), polar bears, snow geese, and their wildlife habitats. Contributions to this report were made by scientists affiliated with the U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; Canadian Wildlife Service; Yukon Department of Renewable Resources; and the Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development. Sections of the report presenting new information on caribou and forage plants were peer-reviewed by three independent, non-affiliated scientists. The remaining sections summarize previously published peer-reviewed scientific papers and were reviewed by a single independent scientist. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated in the publication of this report.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗