USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Nature Communications”

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.

477 records · Page 27Linked to original sources

Earthquake impact scale

With the advent of the USGS prompt assessment of global earthquakes for response (PAGER) system, which rapidly assesses earthquake impacts, U.S. and international earthquake responders are reconsidering their automatic alert and activation levels and response procedures. To help facilitate rapid and appropriate earthquake response, an Earthquake Impact Scale (EIS) is proposed on the basis of two complementary criteria. On the basis of the estimated cost of damage, one is most suitable for domestic events; the other, on the basis of estimated ranges of fatalities, is generally more appropriate for global events, particularly in developing countries. Simple thresholds, derived from the systematic analysis of past earthquake impact and associated response levels, are quite effective in communicating predicted impact and response needed after an event through alerts of green (little or no impact), yellow (regional impact and response), orange (national-scale impact and response), and red (international response). Corresponding fatality thresholds for yellow, orange, and red alert levels are 1, 100, and 1,000, respectively. For damage impact, yellow, orange, and red thresholds are triggered by estimated losses reaching \$1M, \$100M, and \$1B, respectively. The rationale for a dual approach to earthquake alerting stems from the recognition that relatively high fatalities, injuries, and homelessness predominate in countries in which local building practices typically lend themselves to high collapse and casualty rates, and these impacts lend to prioritization for international response. In contrast, financial and overall societal impacts often trigger the level of response in regions or countries in which prevalent earthquake resistant construction practices greatly reduce building collapse and resulting fatalities. Any newly devised alert, whether economic- or casualty-based, should be intuitive and consistent with established lexicons and procedures. Useful alerts should also be both specific (although allowably uncertain) and actionable. In this analysis, an attempt is made at both simple and intuitive color-coded alerting criteria; yet the necessary uncertainty measures by which one can gauge the likelihood for the alert to be over- or underestimated are preserved. The essence of the proposed impact scale and alerting is that actionable loss information is now available in the immediate aftermath of significant earthquakes worldwide on the basis of quantifiable loss estimates. Utilizing EIS, PAGER’s rapid loss estimates can adequately recommend alert levels and suggest appropriate response protocols, despite the uncertainties; demanding or awaiting observations or loss estimates with a high level of accuracy may increase the losses.

Natural Hazards Review↗

Using stable oxygen isotope dual-inlet isotope-ratio mass spectrometry to elucidate uranium transport and mixed 230Th/U calcite formation ages at the seminal Devils Hole, Nevada, natural laboratory

Rationale Vein calcite in Devils Hole has been precipitating continuously in oxygen-isotope equilibrium at a constant temperature for over 500 000 years, providing an unmatched δ 18 O paleoclimate time series. A substantial issue is that coeval calcite (based on matching δ 18 O values) has uranium-series ages differing by 12 000 years. Methods An unparalleled high-accuracy δ 18 O chronology series from continuously submerged calcite was used to correct the published uranium-series ages of non-continuously formed calcite in two cores, cyclically exposed by water-table decline during glacial–interglacial transitions. This method relies on the premise that the δ 18 O values of coevally precipitated calcite are identical, allowing matching calcite δ 18 O values to establish formation ages. Results Exposed calcite can have apparent ages that are 12 000 years too young due to unrecognized uranium mobility and resulting mixed ages identified in over 50 mixed uranium-series ages from previous studies. Secondary uranium in fluids, sourced from the formation or dissolution of porous carbonate deposits (folia) with high uranium-238 ( 238 U) concentrations, has migrated up to 10 mm into vein calcite. Conclusions The continuously submerged Devils Hole δ 18 O chronology is not explained by orbital forcing. Rather, this chronology represents a regional climate record in the southern Great Basin of sea-surface-temperature (SST) variations off California, variations that preceded the last and penultimate deglaciations by 5000 to approximately 10 000 years. Temporal discrepancies between the continuously submerged Devils Hole chronology and other regional δ 18 O records (e.g., the Leviathan chronology) can be explained by unrecognized cryptic, pernicious uranium mobility, leading to model estimations that may be thousands of years younger than actual ages. Consequently, paleo-moisture availability, water-table, and groundwater recharge models based on these mixed uranium-series ages are too young by as much as 12 000 years. The potential for post-formation uranium addition in subaerial cores and speleothems underscores the need for caution in uranium-series dating, highlighting δ 18 O time-series comparisons as a method for identifying mixed ages.

Nevada↗

Two new organic reference materials for δ13C and δ15N measurements and a new value for the δ13C of NBS 22 oil

Analytical grade L-glutamic acid is chemically stable and has a C/N mole ratio of 5, which is close to that of many of natural biological materials, such as blood and animal tissue. Two L-glutamic acid reference materials with substantially different 13 C and 15 N abundances have been prepared for use as organic reference materials for C and N isotopic measurements. USGS40 is analytical grade L-glutamic acid and has a δ 13 C value of −26.24‰ relative to VPDB and a δ 15 N value of −4.52‰ relative to N 2 in air. USGS41 was prepared by dissolving analytical grade L-glutamic acid with L-glutamic acid enriched in 13 C and 15 N. USGS41 has a δ 13 C value of +37.76‰ and a δ 15 N value of +47.57‰. The δ 13 C and δ 15 N values of both materials were measured against the international reference materials NBS 19 calcium carbonate ( δ 13 C = +1.95‰), L-SVEC lithium carbonate ( δ 13 C = −46.48‰), IAEA-N-1 ammonium sulfate ( δ 15 N = 0.43‰), and USGS32 potassium nitrate ( δ 15 N = 180‰) by on-line combustion continuous-flow and off-line dual-inlet isotope-ratio mass spectrometry. Both USGS40 and USGS41 are isotopically homogeneous; reproducibility of δ 13 C is better than 0.13‰, and that of δ 15 N is better than 0.13‰ in 100-μg amounts. These two isotopic reference materials can be used for (i) calibrating local laboratory reference materials, and (ii) quantifying drift with time, mass-dependent fractionations, and isotope-ratio-scale contraction in the isotopic analysis of various biological materials. Isotopic results presented in this paper yield a δ 13 C value for NBS 22 oil of −29.91‰, in contrast to the commonly accepted value of −29.78‰ for which off-line blank corrections probably have not been quantified satisfactorily.

Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry↗

Surface-water-quality assessment of the upper Illinois River basin in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; project description

In 1986, the U.S. Geological Survey began a National Water-Quality Assessment program to (1) provide nationally consistent descriptions of the current status of water quality for a large, diverse, and geographically distributed part of the Nation's surface- and ground-water resources; (2) define, where possible, trends in water quality; and (3) identify and describe the relations of both status and trends in water quality to natural factors and the history of land use and land- and waste-management activities. The program is presently in a pilot phase that will test and modify, as necessary, concepts and approaches in preparation for possible full implementation of the program in the future. The upper Illinois River basin is one of four basins selected to test the concepts and approaches of the surface-water-quality element of the national program. The basin drains 10,949 square miles of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Three principal tributaries are the Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers that join to form the Illinois River and the Fox River. Land use is predominantly agricultural; about 75 percent of the basin is cultivated primarily for production of corn and soybeans. About 13 percent of the basin is urban area, most of which is located in the Chicago metropolitan area. The population of the basin is about 7 million. About 6 million people live in the Des Plaines River basin. Many water-quality issues in the upper Illinois River basin are related to sediment, nutrients, potentially toxic inorganic and organic constituents, and to water-management practices. Occurrence of sediment and the chemical constituents in the rivers and lakes within the basin has the potential to adversely affect the water's suitability for aquatic life, recreation, or, through the consumption of fish, human health. The upper Illinois River basin project consists of five major activities. The first activity--analysis of existing information and preparation of a report that describes recent water-quality conditions and trends--is currently underway. The second activity--fixed-station water-quality sampling at eight stations--began in April 1987 and will last at least 3 years. Water-quality data collected at these stations will be used to determine the frequency of occurrence of constituent concentrations, their annual and seasonal loads, and time trends in concentrations for a selected number of constituents. The third activity will be synoptic water-quality studies. Each study will involve sampling many sites at specific flow conditions and for selected water-quality constituents. Information gained from these studies will supplement informa tion gained from fixed-station sampling. A synoptic study of streambed sediments is tentatively planned for the summer of 1987 to describe the occurrence and distribution of trace elements in the basin. The fourth activity will consist of one or more topical subbasin or river-reach studies. The purpose of such studies is to better define certain water-quality conditions in specific areas and gain an understanding of the processes affecting the observed conditions. The fifth activity is the preparation of reports that will describe results from each of the first four activities. Quality assurance and coordination are being provided at both the national and pilot-project levels. A technical quality-assurance plan that addresses all aspects of sample collection, analysis, and reporting is being prepared at the national level. This plan will be appended as needed at the pilot-project level. A National Coordinating Work Group that functions under the auspices of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data and the Advisory Committee on Water Data for Public Use has been established at the national level. A local liaison committee consisting of representatives from Federal, State, and local agencies has been established to enhance communication and to ensure that the scientific information produced by the

Open-File Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. USGS does not improve the quality of its customers' lives; it provides the informational tools for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other customers to understand and improve their own lives. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2000. Some of these USGS activities were conducted in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In the year 2000, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Native Alaskans to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. More Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations are using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking such data from the USGS with greater frequency. The increasing use of such technologies allows Tribal governments additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of these governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involve collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects have a duration of two or three years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some are funded through cooperative agreements or reimbursable accounts, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are cooperating to use USGS knowledge for the benefit of American Indian and Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from an individual or group of USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help us fulfill a mission of the USGS, to make science relevant, while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster knowledge of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, paying the costs themselves, yet bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. As USGS moves to a more regional organizational structure, it will establish contacts in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. Within the USGS, this report will help in developing outreach, educational, and program documents for use in future years. It is hoped that USGS employees, American Indians, and Alaska Natives will adapt these activities in new areas and will use the USGS contacts to expand the relevance of the USGS to more Americans.

Report↗

Forecasting stream habitat and Brook Trout responses to climate change in Catoctin Mountain Park

Anticipating and mitigating the effects of climate change is a fundamental challenge for natural resource conservation. In this report, we respond to research needs identified by Catoctin Mountain Park (CATO) for native Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) conservation and management as part of the US Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Resources Preservation Program in FY15-16. We addressed three overarching research questions: (1) How will anticipated changes in air temperature affect stream habitats? (2) How will changes to stream habitat affect the distribution of Brook Trout? (3) Which stream segments are most and least vulnerable to the effects of climate change? First, we surveyed Brook Trout abundance and fish community composition using electrofishing techniques within three watersheds: Owens Creek, upper Big Hunting Creek, and Blue Blazes Creek (a tributary to Big Hunting Creek). Second, we deployed a network of stream temperature gages to assess spatial variation in stream temperature and groundwater (GW) influence. Third, we used modeling techniques to forecast future stream temperatures that account for GW influences and air temperature scenarios. Fish sampling detected 13 species and 15,345 individual fish, the majority of which were Blacknose Dace (60%), Blue Ridge Sculpin (26%), and Brook Trout (6%). Brook Trout were not observed in Blue Blazes Creek and exhibited higher densities in Owens Creek than upper Big Hunting Creek (average densities = 19 fish/100 m and 4 fish/100 m, respectively). In contrast, Brown Trout were present in Blue Blazes Creek and exhibited greater density in Blue Blazes Creek than either Owens Creek or upper Big Hunting Creek (average densities = 3.0 fish/100 m, 0.3 fish/100 m, and 1.7 fish/100 m, respectively). Brown Trout occurred in sympatry with Brook Trout in Owens Creek and upper Big Hunting Creek, but appeared to have replaced Brook Trout in Blue Blazes Creek. Our fish surveys also revealed important locations for Brook Trout reproduction and young-of-year (YOY) dispersal within the Owens Creek watershed. Our study also revealed surprising differences in the distribution of Blue Ridge Sculpin among CATO streams. This species was abundant in Owens Creek (average density = 83 fish/100 m) but was less common in Blue Blazes Creek (average density = 12 fish/100 m) and was not detected in upper Big Hunting Creek. Histological examination of several specimens from Blue Blazes Creek by V. Blazer at the USGS Leetown Science Center revealed the presence of a novel parasite (Dermosystidium sp.) which has been linked to fish population declines elsewhere (Blazer et al. 2016). The parasite was not detected in Blue Ridge Sculpin samples from Owens Creek, and all trout appeared to be uninfected. Our survey results suggest that Blue Ridge Sculpin have been extirpated from upper Big Hunting Creek and have not recolonized from downstream source populations due to the fish passage barrier of Cunningham Falls. We recommend additional research to (1) evaluate the feasibility of reintroducing Blue Ridge Sculpin into upper Big Hunting Creek and (2) continue monitoring the distribution and potential spread of Dermocystidium in downstream waters. Stream temperatures ranged from 9.6 – 27.6 ºC during baseflow conditions in 2015 and 2016. Sites within upper Big Hunting Creek were consistently warmer than in Owens Creek or Blue Blazes Creek, suggesting an effect of headwater ponds outside CATO on upper Big Hunting Creek temperatures. For instance, in 2016 the maximum observed temperature in upper Big Hunting Creek was 27.6 ºC whereas Owens Creek reached a maximum of 23.7 ºC that year. Stream temperature data also revealed that 2016 was warmer than 2015 throughout the study area but did not exceed thermal tolerance limits for Brook Trout in either year. We estimated the influence of GW on stream temperatures using a statistical modeling approach based on the relationship between daily mean air temperature and stream temperature over time. Results indicated that effects of GW were generally stronger in the Owens Creek watershed than in Blue Blazes or upper Big Hunting Creek. However, we detected substantial spatial variation in GW influence among Owens Creek sites, with stream temperatures at some locations showing relatively little GW influence and others showing very strong influences (and correspondingly small influence of daily mean air temperatures). Although incoming lateral seeps were detected in upper Big Hunting Creek (D. Ferrier, Hood College, personal communication), the strongest effects of GW in the study area were due to GW upwelling within portions of the Owens Creek watershed (i.e., Tributary C in Figure 4) where we also observed high numbers of Brook Trout juveniles. Our results therefore identified potential high-priority areas for Brook Trout conservation in CATO. Finally, we modeled future stream temperatures based on scenarios characterizing GW sensitivity to air temperature and future air temperature increases. Stream temperature forecasts revealed important differences in habitat suitability for Brook Trout within and among watersheds. Big Hunting Creek sites were generally more sensitive to air temperature increases than sites in Owens Creek or Blue Blazes Creek. For instance, an increase in mean annual air temperature of 1.5 ºC (lowest level evaluated) exceeded thermal thresholds for Brook Trout in the majority of sites within that watershed, regardless of GW influence levels. In contrast, an air temperature increase of 1.5 ºC did not exceed thermal thresholds for Brook Trout in Owens Creek. However, modeled air temperature increases of 5 ºC resulted in a loss of Brook Trout thermal suitability throughout the study area. Model results revealed spatially patchy responses to air temperature increases that could provide an early-warning system for trout monitoring designs in CATO.

Maryland↗

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗

Regional and other general factors bearing on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards to coastal communities of southeastern Alaska

The great Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, brought into sharp focus the need for engineering geologic studies in seismically active regions. As a result, nine communities in southeastern Alaska were selected for reconnaissance investigations as an integral part of an overall program to evaluate earthquake and other geologic hazards in most of the larger Alaska coastal communities. This report gives background information on the regional and other general factors that bear on these evaluations. Southeastern Alaska, about 525 miles long and averaging about 125 miles in width, consists of a narrow mainland strip and numerous islands. For the most part, it is a region of rugged relief with numerous glaciers capping many of the higher mountainous areas and with long linear fiords forming the inland waterways. A maritime climate prevails with mild winters and cool summers. The southeastern part of the region receives the highest precipitation in the continental United States. Ketchikan, with a population of 6,994 in 1970, is the largest city. Geology and structure of the area are complex. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks crop out and range in age from Paleozoic to Tertiary. Surficial deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age mantle many areas. All of southeastern Alaska, except probably the highest peaks, was covered by glacier ice advances of late Pleistocene age. Major deglaciation was well advanced by 10,000 years ago--a time which approximately marks the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. There followed a period of warm climate called the Hypsithermal, which in southeastern Alaska began 7,000-8,000 years ago and ended about 4,800-3,500 years ago. Glaciers in most places receded back of their present positions. The Hypsithermal was followed by an interval (termed Neoglaciation) of cooler climate and resurgence of glacier ice which continues to the present, although most glaciers are now rapidly receding. During the past 10,000 years worldwide sea level has risen about 100 feet, but during the past 4,000 years it has risen only about 10 feet or about 0.03 inch per year. With sea level used as a datum, the amount of sea-level rise must be added to the apparent uplift of land for the time under consideration to determine the actual amount of land uplift. The widespread presence of emergent marine deposits, several hundred feet above sea level, demonstrates that the land in southeastern Alaska has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known uplift is in the vicinity of Juneau where glaciomarine deposits are present 750 feet above present sea level. Part of southeastern Alaska is presently undergoing one of the most rapid rates of uplift of any place in the world. The fastest emergence is occurring in the Glacier Bay area where the land is being uplifted relative to sea level approximately 3.9 cm per year. Most or all of the uplift appears to be due to rebound as a result of deglaciation. Southeastern Alaska lies within the circum-Pacific earthquake belt, one of the world's greatest zones of seismic activity. During historic time, there have been five earthquakes in the region with magnitudes of 8 or greater, three with magnitudes of 7 to 8, eight with magnitudes of 6 to 7, more than 15 with magnitudes of 5 to 6, and about 140 recorded earthquakes with magnitudes smaller than 5 or of unassigned magnitudes. All of the earthquakes with magnitudes 8 or greater, and a large proportion of the others, appear to be related to the active Fairweather- Queen Charlotte Islands fault system or its western extension, the Chugach-St. Elias fault. Earthquake epicenters on the Denali fault system, the other major fault system in southeastern Alaska, are few in comparison. However, because high microearthquake activity has been recorded recently on this system and earthquakes of moderate size have occurred on some of its segments, the Denali fault system probably should not be dismissed as a relict fault system of no current tectonic importance. There are numerous other known faults, as well as lineaments that may be faults of varying degrees of tectonic activity in southeastern Alaska, adjacent Canada, and eastern Alaska. One of these elements is the Totschunda fault system, which connects with the Denali fault system in eastern Alaska; it has been very active during Holocene time but few historical earthquake epicenters appear to be related to it. Both historical seismicity and geologic conditions, such as frequency and recency of faulting, must be considered together to permit an assessment of the future earthquake probability of an area. Data are too few for both factors for an accurate evaluation to be made of earthquake probability in southeastern Alaska. However, information compiled in the form of strain-release and seismic-zone maps permit some generalizations. Thus, it is tentatively concluded that most, if not all, of southeastern Alaska should be placed in seismic zone 3, a zone in which earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6 will occur from time to time and where there may be major damage to manmade structures. Inferred effects from future earthquakes in southeastern Alaska include: (1) surface displacement along faults and other tectonic land-level changes, (2) ground shaking, (3) compaction, (4) liquefaction in cohesionless materials, (5) reaction of sensitive and quick clays, (6) water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing, (7) earthquake-induced sub aerial slides and slumps, (8) earthquake induced subaqueous slides, (9) effects on glaciers and related features, (10) effects on ground water and stream flow, and (11) tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves. Because of the reconnaissance nature of our studies in the coastal communities and the sparsity of laboratory data on physical properties of geologic units in each area studied, the inferred effects must be largely empirical and generalized. Therefore, the inferences are based in large part upon the effects of past major earthquakes in Alaska and elsewhere, particularly upon the well-documented effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. Buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, harbor facilities, pipelines, canals, and other manmade structures may be severely damaged or destroyed by fault displacement or related tectonic land-level changes in southeastern Alaska. Direct damage from fault rupture would be restricted virtually to structures built directly athwart the fault. In California and Nevada, fault rupture almost always accompanies shocks of magnitude 6.5 or greater. The Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, and the Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960, dramatically illustrated the severe adverse effects that can result from uplift or subsidence over a wide area. The variable most responsible for the degree of shaking at any epicentral distance is the type of ground. Generally, shaking is considerably greater in poorly consolidated deposits than in hard bedrock, particularly if the deposits are water saturated. Severe shaking of alluvial deposits and manmade fill, with resultant heavy damage, is well documented from the records of many past earthquakes. Damage commonly has been heavy as a result of ground settlement caused by compaction of loose sediments by shaking during an earthquake. This has been especially true where compaction was accompanied by tectonic downdrop of land, such as occurred during the Chilean earthquake of 1960 and the Alaska earthquake of 1964. Loosely emplaced manmade fill, deltaic deposits, beach deposits, and alluvial deposits may be susceptible to compaction in southeastern Alaska during a severe earthquake. Liquefaction of sand and silt is a fairly common effect of large earthquakes. It was well illustrated at Niigata, Japan, during the earthquake of June 16, 1964, and resulted in extensive damage. When part of a sloping soil mass liquefies, the entire mass can undergo catastrophic failure and can flow as a high-density liquid. In southeastern Alaska, deltaic deposits probably would be most susceptible to liquefaction. Sensitive and quick clays, which lose a considerable part of their strength when shaken, commonly fail during an earthquake and become rapid earthflows. Extensive studies were made of the sensitivity of the Bootlegger Cove Clay at Anchorage because of the marked loss of shear strength and dramatic failures of the deposits during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. If similar sensitive clays are present in some places in southeastern Alaska, they most likely are in some of the emergent fine-grained marine deposits; supporting data to confirm their presence, however, are largely lacking. Records of some 50 major earthquakes show that in at least half of the instances water and sediment have been ejected from surficial deposits Water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing commonly cause extensive damage to the works of man. Ejecta may fill basements and other low-lying parts of buildings. Agricultural land can be covered with a blanket of infertile soils, and small ponds can be filled or made shallow. In southeastern Alaska these phenomena are most likely to occur on valley floors, deltas, tidal flats, alluvial fans, swamps, and lakeshores. Earthquake-induced sliding on land generally is confined to steep slopes but may take place in fine-grained deposits on moderately to nearly flat surfaces if the deposits are subject to liquefaction. A large rockslide triggered by the Lituya Bay, Alaska, earthquake of July 10, 1958, generated a wave that surged up the opposite wall of the inlet to a record height of 1,740 feet. During the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of August 17, 1959, a spectacular rockslide plunged into the Madison River canyon, buried 28 people, dammed the river, and created a large lake. Earthquake-records are replete with accounts of sliding of surficial deposits during moderate to large earthquakes. Most or all of the general factors that favor subaerial landsliding are present in southeastern Alaska. Earthquake-induced subaqueous slides can produce adverse effects both nearshore and some distance offshore. Nearshore sliding may progress shoreward and destroy harbor facilities and other structures, commonly with substantial loss of life. Disastrous large submarine slides occurred along the fronts of deltas in Seward and Valdez during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. In similar fashion, the largest submarine slides in southeastern Alaska likely will be triggered along the larger delta fronts. Sliding farther offshore can constitute a threat to navigation because of changes in water depths. Also underwater sliding can break communication cables. Glaciers were not greatly affected by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 despite the fact that about 20 percent of the area that underwent strong shaking is covered by ice. In contrast, the cataclysmic avalanche of ice and rock that fell from a high glacier-covered peak in Peru during the earthquake of May 31, 1970, produced devastating effects downvalley on man and his works in the form of mudflows. Most towns in southeastern Alaska are sufficiently distant from glaciers so as not be to directly affected. Both the Alaska earthquake of 1964 and the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of 1959 significantly affected ground- and surface-water regimens. Water levels in some wells declined whereas in others flow increased. Some springs discharged at a rate three times as much as normal; flow of others decreased or stopped. Discharge of many streams increased markedly. Most or all of the effects described above could occur in parts of southeastern Alaska during future large earthquakes. Tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves associated with large earthquakes commonly cause vast property damage and heavy loss of life. Tsunami effects can be devastating to coastal areas as far as many thousands of miles from their generation source. Seiche effects generally are confined to inland bodies of water or to relatively enclosed coastal bodies of water. Abnormal waves generated by submarine sliding or by subaerial sliding into water generally produce only local effects but may be highly devastating. Tsunami waves resulting from the Chilean earthquake of 1960 inflicted extensive damage and loss of life on coastal communities throughout a large part of southern Chile, and significant runups and damage were recorded in many places throughout the Pacific Ocean area. The tsunami waves generated by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 struck with devastating force along a broad stretch of the Alaska coast and produced heavy property damage and loss of life as far away as Crescent City, Calif. Seiche waves generated by that earthquake reached runup heights of 20-30 feet on some lakes in Alaska, and water-level fluctuations were recorded on streams, reservoirs, lakes, and swimming pools in States bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Waves generated by submarine sliding struck violently at a number of places during or immediately after the quake and were the major cause of loss of life and damage to property. Slide-generated waves probably would have a higher destructive potential in southeastern Alaska than either tsunami waves or seiche waves because of their possibly higher local runups and because they can hit the shores almost without warning during or immediately after an earthquake. Nonearthquake-related geologic hazards, although generally far less dramatic than those related to earthquakes, tend to occur so much more frequently or persistently that their aggregate effects can be significant. Three kinds of geologic hazards of this type are discussed: (1) nonearthquake-induced landsliding and subaqueous sliding, (2) flooding, and (3) land uplift. The potential for nonearthquake-triggered landsliding in southeastern Alaska ranges widely from place to place. Past sliding generally furnishes the clue in the prediction of where and in what materials future sliding will occur. Fast-moving rockslides, debris slides, and mudflows can be expected to occur from time to time on steep slopes and be highly destructive to highways, power plants, pipelines, buildings, and other facilities located on a slope or at its base. Present slow downslope movement of talus can be expected to continue at the same general rate unless conditions are changed by man or there are climatic changes. Snow and debris avalanches can be especially hazardous during winter months. Long-inactive landslides may be triggered into renewed activity or new slides may be created by man-induced modifications. Accelerated slope erosion and debris flows may follow large-scale clearing and cutting of timber. Subaqueous sliding can be expected to occur periodically along fronts of deltas and on other oversteepened underwater slopes. Floods have been common in parts of southeastern Alaska because of heavy precipitation and rapid runoff from steep slopes with resulting heavy damage to roads and other facilities. Continued damage can be expected in the future unless more remedial measures are taken. Current uplift of land in southeastern Alaska, although probably not affecting man significantly in a short period of time, may have some adverse long-term effects. These long-term effects should be borne in mind when facilities such as docks and boat harbors are constructed on or near the shore, where there is a critical relation between height of land and water.

Alaska↗