SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Annual Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Alaska”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

10 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2003

Sea otter studies in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: annual report 2002

Since 1995, the number of sea otters in Glacier Bay proper has increased from around 5 to more than 1200. Sea otter distribution is mostly limited to the Lower Bay, south of Sandy Cove, and is not continuous within that area. Concentrations occur in the vicinity of Sita Reef and Boulder Island and between Pt. Carolus and Rush Pt. on the west side of the Bay, although there have been occasional sightings north of Sandy Cove (Figure 1). Large portions of the Bay remain unoccupied by sea otters, but recolonization is occurring rapidly. Most prey recovered by sea otters in Glacier Bay are ecologically, commercially, or socially important species. In 2002 sea otter diet consisted of 35% clam, 26% mussel, 3% crab, 3.0% snail, 2% starfish, 11% urchins, 2% other, and 20% unidentified. Dominant clam species include the butter clam, Saxidomus gigantea , the Greenland cockle, Serripes groenlandicus , and the littleneck clam, Protothaca staminea . Urchins are primarily green urchins, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis , and the mussel is Modiolus modiolus . Crabs observed in 2002 include the Dungeness, Cancer magister , the kelp crab Pugettia gracilis , and the helmet crab, Telmessus cherigonus . Although we characterize diet at broad geographic scales, we have previously found diet to vary between sites separated by as little as several hundred meters. Dietary variation among and within sites can reflect differences in prey availability as well as individual specialization. We estimated species composition, density, biomass, and sizes of subtidal clams, urchins, and mussels at 13 sites in Glacier Bay and 5 sites in nearby Port Althorp, where sea otters have been present for at least 20 years. All sites were selected based on the presence of abundant clam siphons and the absence of sea otters (Glacier Bay) or abundant shell litter and the presence of sea otters (Port Althorp). Glacier Bay sites were selected to achieve a broad geographic sample of dense subtidal clam beds within Glacier Bay prior to occupation and foraging by sea otters. Port Althorp sites were chosen to achieve a representative sample of subtidal clam beds already under prolonged foraging pressure by sea otters. There was no direct evidence of otter foraging at any of our Glacier Bay sampling sites. In Glacier Bay, we sampled 15,338 bivalves (average of 1,180/site) representing 14 species of clam, 2 species of mussel, and a single scallop and we sampled 6,917 urchins (average of 513/site). In Port Althorp, we sampled 1,034 bivalves (average of 207/site) representing 14 species of clam. We found only 5 urchins, all S. droebachiensis . Mean densities and biomass of all subtidal clams were significantly greater in Glacier Bay (59.2 and 99/0.25m 2 compared to Port Althorp (10.3 and 5.8/0.25m 2 (p<0.002 for both). Our contrasts of subtidal clam populations between Glacier Bay and Port Althorp suggest that clam densities will likely decline by about a factor of six and that clam biomass estimates will decline by more than a factor of ten. Numerically dominant species of clams, P. staminea , S. gigantea , Macoma sp. and Mya sp. were all significantly greater in density and biomass in Glacier Bay, while C. nutalli density was low but significantly higher in Port Althorp. Subtidal clam species diversity was significantly greater in Port Althorp compared to Glacier Bay, although this may simply reflect habitat differences. Sea urchin densities were high in Glacier Bay, while in Port Althorp urchins were virtually absent. Sea otters are now well established in limited areas of the lower portions of Glacier Bay. It is likely that distribution and numbers of sea otters will continue to increase in Glacier Bay in the near future. Glacier Bay supports large and diverse populations of clams that are largely unexploited by sea otters at present. It is predictable that the density and sizes of clam populations will decline in response to otter predation. This will result in fewer opportunities for human harvest, but will also trigger ecosystem level changes, as prey for other predators, such as octopus, sea stars, fishes, birds and mammals are modified. Sea otters will also modify benthic habitats through excavation of sediments required to extract burrowing infauna such as clams. Effects of sediment disturbance by foraging sea otters are not understood. Glacier Bay also supports large populations of other preferred sea otter prey, such as king ( Paralithodes sp. ), tanner ( Chionoecetes sp. ) and dungeness ( Cancer magister ) crabs and green sea urchins ( S. droebachiensis ). As the colonization of Park waters by sea otters continues, it is also likely that dramatic changes will occur in the species composition, abundance, and size class distribution of many components of the nearshore marine ecosystem. Many of the changes will occur as a direct result of predation by sea otters. Others will result from indirect or cascading effects of sea otter foraging, such as increased kelp production and modified prey availability for other nearshore predators. Without recognizing and quantifying the extent of change initiated by the colonization of Glacier Bay by sea otters, management of nearshore resources will be severely constrained for many decades.

Alaska↗

USGS2002

Marine predator surveys in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Since 1999, vessel based surveys to estimate species composition, distribution and relative abundance of marine birds and mammals have been conducted along coastal and pelagic (offshore) transects in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Surveys have been conducted during winter (November-March) and summer (June). This annual report presents the results of those surveys conducted in March and June of 2001. Following completion of surveys in 2002 we will provide a final report of the results of all surveys conducted between 1999 and 2002. Glacier Bay supports diverse and abundant assemblages of marine birds and mammals. In 2001 we identified 58 species of bird, 7 species of marine mammal, and 6 species of terrestrial mammal on transects sampled during winter and summer. Of course all species are not equally abundant. Among all taxa, in both seasons, sea ducks were the numerically dominant group. In their roles as consumers and because of their generally large size, marine mammals are also likely important in the consumption of energy produced in the Glacier Bay ecosystem. Most common and abundant marine birds and mammals can be placed in either a fish based (e.g. alcids and pinnipeds), or a benthic invertebrate (e.g. sea ducks and sea otters) based food web. Distinct differences in the species composition and abundance of marine birds were observed between winter and summer surveys. Winter marine bird assemblages were dominated numerically (> 11,000; 65% of all birds) by a relatively few species of sea ducks (scoters, goldeneye, Bufflehead, Harlequin and Long-tailed ducks). The sea ducks were distributed almost exclusively along near shore habitats. The prevalence of sea ducks during the March surveys indicates the importance of Glacier Bay as a wintering area for this poorly understood group of animals that occupy a high trophic position in a principally benthic invertebrate (mussel and clam) food web. Marine mammal assemblages were generally consistent between seasons, although Humpback and Killer whales were not observed in winter 2001. Summer marine bird assemblages remained numerically dominated by sea ducks, but species composition shifted between the goldeneye whose density was 44/m 2 in winter to < 0.2/m 2 in summer, to scoters, whose density was 29/m 2 in winter to > 60/m 2 in summer. Large increases in Black-legged kittiwake, murrelet (Marbled and Kittlitz’s) and Common merganser densities were detected during summer surveys. Seasonal differences in abundance of species likely reflected differences in life history attributes (e.g. reproductive biology, foraging ecology) among species. Because of differences observed in species composition between the winter and summer, it is apparent that a single annual survey cannot accurately describe the populations of marine birds and mammals that occur in Glacier Bay. Preliminary analysis further suggests that interpretations of data resulting from this type of survey may depend to a large extent on the individual species. Because species exhibit differences in behavior, morphology, coloration, and distribution, accuracy and precision of abundance estimates likely vary among species. Confidence in survey results should be evaluated in consideration of life history and detection probabilities at the species level. However, survey results likely provide reasonable estimates of species composition and relative abundance, as well as accurate abundance estimates for those species whose detection closely approximates one.

Alaska↗

USGS2019

U.S. Geological Survey — Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska—2019 annual science report

In keeping with our national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help the Nation address issues and solve problems in five major topical areas (listed alphabetically): Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Wildlife, Fish, and Habitat. The USGS in Alaska engages about 400 scientists and support staff working in three major science centers, Cooperative Research Units, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In just the last 5 years, the USGS in Alaska has produced scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,000 publications and about 250 technical reports. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗

USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska —2020 annual science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,100 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗

USGS2018

U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers and U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center—Annual report for 2017

Introduction The year 2017 was a year of review and renewal for the Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC). The Southeast, Northwest, Alaska, Southwest, and North Central CSCs’ 5-year summary review reports were released in 2017 and contain the findings of the external review teams led by the Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit in conjunction with the American Fisheries Society. The reports for the Pacific Islands, South Central, and Northeast CSCs are planned for release in 2018. The reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate aspects of the cooperative agreement, such as the effectiveness of the CSC in meeting project goals and assessment of the level of scientific contribution and achievement. These reviews serve as a way for the CSCs and NCCWSC to look for ways to recognize and enhance our network’s strengths and identify areas for improvement. The reviews were followed by the CSC recompetition, which led to new hosting agreements at the Northwest, Alaska, and Southeast CSCs. Learn more about the excellent science and activities conducted by the network centers in the 2017 annual report.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska—2021–22 biennial science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions, and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,050 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗

USGS2014

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center annual report for 2013

In 2008, Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The center was formed to respond to the demands of natural resource managers for rigorous scientific information and effective tools for assessing and responding to climate change. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Va., the NCCWSC has invested more than $93 million (through FY13) in cutting-edge climate change research and, in response to Secretarial Order No. 3289, established and is managing eight regional Department of Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs). In 2013: The DOI CSCs awarded nearly $7 million in funding to universities and other partners for climate and land-use change research. The scientific work of the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise moved toward projects that focus on ‘Science Infrastructure and Capacity Building’ and ‘Thematic Science’. A permanent director, David Helweg, Ph.D., was hired for the Pacific Islands CSC (PI CSC), completing the CSC leadership team. Staff scientists were hired at the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) CSCs. Each of the eight CSCs completed the formation of regional Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs) and a national advisory committee (ACCCNRS) was created to oversee the NCCWSC-CSC enterprise. NCCWSC staff worked on creating a searchable public database on climate change vulnerability assessments. NCCWSC scientists authored articles in a special issue of the Ecological Society of America’s journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which was devoted to an assessment of climate change effects on biodiversity and ecosystems, and the consequences for people. Learn more about these achievements in The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center Annual Report for 2013 .

Circular↗

USGS1994

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1993

This collection of 19 papers continues the annual series of U.S. Geological Survey reports on geologic investigations in Alaska. Contributions include 14 Articles and 5 shorter Geologic Notes that report results from all corners of the State. USGS activities in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of earth science topics, including the environment, hazards, resources, and geologic framework studies. Three articles focus on the environmental geochemistry of parts of south-central, west-central, and southwestern Alaska. An article on methane released from permafrost near Fairbanks and a note on paleowind direction indicators on the Arctic coastal plain contribute to ongoing climate and paleoclimate investigations. Landslide hazards in the Talkeetna Mountains and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park are discussed in two notes. Possible active fault traces near Alaska's main population center are described in an article on the Castle Mountain fault. An article on Aniakchak volcano presents evidence for a previously unrecognized catastrophic flooding event. Resources and resource assessment on gold, base metals, and coal are discussed in several articles and a note. Geologic framework studies cover tectonics, paleontology, stratigraphy, and metamorphic petrology. One contribution involves field methods; it evaluates the relative accuracy of global positioning systems and topographic map-based methods for deriving location data for field stations. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports about Alaska in USGS publications released in 1993 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications in 1993.

Alaska↗

USGS2021

Maps of the Arctic Alaska boundary area as defined by the U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act—Including geospatial characteristics of select marine and terrestrial features

This pamphlet presents a series of general reference maps showing relevant geospatial features of the U.S. Arctic boundary as defined by the U.S. Congress since 1984. The first generation of the U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) boundary maps was originally formatted and published in 2009 by a private firm contracted with the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. Recognizing the steadily increasing relevance of Arctic issues to national and global affairs that requires more functional projections and online tools, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Alaska Regional Office and the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center developed this updated series of ARPA boundary maps. Map sheet 1 shows the ARPA boundary as it relates to Alaska and marine features of the Bering Sea. Map sheet 2 shows the ARPA boundary from a circumpolar perspective. Map sheet 3 shows the national boundary of the U.S. 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone through the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, facilitating Arctic domain awareness and more consistent territorial assessments of the U.S. Arctic. Map sheet 4 shows, in poster-size detail, the ARPA boundary as it relates to terrestrial features of Arctic Alaska north of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Map sheet 5 shows, in poster-size detail, the ARPA boundary as it relates to marine and terrestrial features of the Aleutian Islands. These new maps collectively illustrate several value-added attributes, including updated bathymetry and shoreline refinements, demographic information, international borders and offshore territorial claims, Alaska conservation areas, Alaska land cover, Alaska terrestrial shaded relief, annual sea ice maximum extent, annual circumpolar 10-degree-Celsius isotherm, location of active volcanoes, and updated geospatial information. The static PDF-file maps offer value as standalone products but are intended for use with a potential interactive website that can be sourced by annual data updates, allowing users to access the various map layers in a dynamic up-to-date environment.

Alaska↗

USGS2025

Estimated average annualized tsunami losses for the United States

Tsunami hazards are substantial threats to coastal communities across the United States (U.S.) and its territories. U.S. states and territories collaborate through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) to develop their own tsunami-hazard information for outreach and evacuation planning. An effort to curate this tsunami-hazard information to support comprehensive risk analysis at the national level has not yet been completed. In support of this effort, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) collaborated with the NTHMP, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) starting in 2023. This collaboration included the collection and analysis of existing tsunami hazard data and methods in the U.S. Tsunami subject matter experts identified and selected scientifically defensible methods for estimating the risks to buildings and populations in coastal communities. These efforts may support decision making regarding resilience policies, priorities, strategies and funding levels. Tsunamis can be triggered by earthquakes, subaerial or submarine landslides, volcanic eruptions, glacial calving, near-earth objects, weather or other events. These events can cause severe destruction, injuries, and loss of life due to powerful currents and flooding. Tsunamis pose a substantial threat to the western United States and all U.S. territories, as described below. ■ Hawaii is threatened by distant tsunamis due to its central location in the Pacific Ocean basin and has a history of local events. ■ Alaska, particularly the Aleutian Islands, faces local tsunami threats due to proximity to the Alaska-Aleutian Subduction Zone, as well as distant tsunamis from around the Pacific Ocean basin. ■ The western coast of the U.S. is threatened by distant tsunamis from around the Pacific Ocean basin and local source tsunamis from earthquakes generated within the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the Pacific Northwest. ■ American Samoa faces local tsunami threats from earthquakes generated in the nearby Tonga Trench, as well as distant tsunami threats. ■ Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are threatened by local tsunamis from the nearby Mariana Subduction Zone, as well as distant sources from around the Pacific Ocean Basin. ■ Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are threatened by multiple local and distant tsunami sources, such as the Puerto Rico Trench (PRT), given their location in the complex seismic region of the Caribbean Sea. Several historical events stand out because of their catastrophic impacts. ■ In the Pacific Northwest, the 1700 Cascadia earthquake caused a tsunami that affected coastal Native American communities, though the extent of the damage is not fully documented (Ludwin, et al., 2005). ■ In Puerto Rico, the 1918 earthquake triggered a tsunami that caused $77 million in damage in 2022 dollars and 116 fatalities, primarily along the western coast (Coffman et al., 1982). ■ The 1946 Aleutian Islands earthquake triggered a massive tsunami that devastated Hilo, Hawaii, killing 158 people and resulting in approximately $375 million in damage (adjusted to 2022 dollars) (Fisher et al., 2023). ■ The 1964 Alaska earthquake (M 9.2) generated tsunamis that caused severe destruction in some communities across Alaska, Oregon, and California. This disaster led to a total of 124 fatalities and approximately $2.9 billion in property damage (adjusted to 2022 dollars) (Brocher et al., 2014) (Alaska Science Center, 2024). ■ In American Samoa, a tsunami generated by the 2009 Samoa earthquake (Mw 8.1) caused widespread devastation, resulting in 34 confirmed fatalities (Apatu et al., 2013) and economic losses exceeding $160 million (adjusted to 2022 dollars) (DHS, 2011). More recent events, including the 2010 Chile earthquake, the 2011 Japan earthquake, and the 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption, resulted in millions of dollars in damage to numerous ports and harbors in the U.S. South Pacific territories, Hawaii, and along the west coast of the U.S. (Lynett, et al., 2022) (Wilson, et al., 2013). Since these events, the expansion of the built environment in lowlying areas along the coast has increased the exposure of buildings and people, thereby further escalating community risk from tsunamis. This report provides a comprehensive national assessment of earthquake-generated tsunami risk. It does not include impacts from tsunamis generated by landslides, volcanic eruptions, glacial calving, near-earth objects, weather, or other events. This study is based on the best available hazard data from the U.S. Pacific Coast (California, Oregon and Washington), Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Pacific Territories (American Samoa, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and Caribbean Territories (Puerto Rico and United States Virgin Islands). Tsunami risks associated with states along the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and Great Lakes are not included in this study because Hazus 6.1 software (FEMA 2024a) does not currently include the ability to analyze tsunami risk in those states. Once modeling capabilities and tsunami hazard data become available for additional states, FEMA may incorporate these data into future editions of this study.

Alaska, California, Hawaii Oregon, Washington↗