Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “National Hazards Observer”

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.

175 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2026

Channel change and sediment transport in the Puyallup River watershed through 2022

The Puyallup River drains a 990 square mile watershed in western Washington, with headwaters on the glacier-covered flanks of Mount Rainier. Major tributaries include the White, Carbon, and Mowich Rivers. In the levee-confined reaches of the lower watershed, loss of flood conveyance due to sand and gravel deposition has been a chronic issue. Over much of the 20th century, flood conveyance was maintained through sediment removal, but this practice ended in the late 1990s. Flood hazard management activities since the 1990s have primarily involved levee removal or setback projects. Assessments of 1984-2009 repeat cross sections suggested that sediment deposition rates were particularly high in reaches with recent levee setbacks. However, there have been no assessments of recent deposition rates since the 2009 surveys. There are also concerns that intensifying flood hydrology or increased sediment delivery from Mount Rainier may exacerbate deposition. However, assessment of those risks has been hindered by limited understanding of watershed-scale sediment delivery and routing, particularly for coarse sand and gravel. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Pierce County, initiated this study to improve understanding of sediment deposition in the lower Puyallup River watershed. This work is primarily based on differencing of multiple aerial lidar datasets collected during 2002–2022, supplemented by early 1990 photogrammetric elevation datasets, geomorphic assessments of streamgage data, historical topographic surveys from 1907, and previously collected sediment transport measurements. Analyses cover the Puyallup, Carbon, and Mowich Rivers, but do not include the White River. During 2004–2020, repeat aerial lidar indicates that 1.3 ± 0.3 million yd3 of sediment accumulated in the lower 20 valley miles (VMs) of the Puyallup River, averaging 80,000 ± 20,000 cubic yards per year (yd3/yr). Deposition was observed during both 2004–11 and 2011–20 lidar differencing intervals. This continued a long-term depositional trend that extends back to at least 1977. From 2004 to 2011, deposition rates along the Soldiers Home levee setback reach, the only setback project downstream of VM 20 completed prior to 2011, were approximately four times higher than in adjacent unmodified reaches. From 2011 to 2020, two additional setback projects were completed; volumetric deposition rates over all three setback reaches were similar to adjacent unmodified reaches, suggesting elevated setback deposition in the 2004–11 interval may have been influenced by an extreme flood in November 2006. These levee setback projects increased the local cross-sectional area of the floodway, used as a rough proxy for relative flood conveyance, by 50 to 200 percent above 2004 conditions. If deposition continued at recent rates, cross-sectional area over the levee setback reaches would be reduced back to 2004 values by 2050-90. Deposition also occurred over the lower six VMs of the Carbon River during 2004–20, though volumes (0.15 ± 0.09 million yd3) were an order of magnitude lower than along the Puyallup River. Relatively lower deposition rates in the Carbon River are most likely the combined result of modestly lower incoming sediment loads, modestly steeper channel slope, and the additional sediment transport capacity provided by two large non-glacial tributaries that enter the Carbon River near VM 5. Upstream of the depositional reaches described above, 2002–22 sediment storage trends along the Puyallup, Carbon, and Mowich Rivers were predominately negative (net erosion) up to the Mount Rainier National Park boundary. Net erosion was the result of bank and bluff erosion exceeding deposition across wetted channel and bare gravel areas, as opposed to uniform vertical downcutting. Net erosion along these river valleys delivered 3.4 ± 0.6 million yd3 to the river system, equivalent to 190,000 ± 35,000 yd3/yr. Most of that volume was supplied by erosion of relatively low (4–10 ft) surfaces along the Puyallup and Mowich Rivers and tall (300 ft) glacial bluffs along the lower Carbon River. Substantial aggradation from 1984 to 2009 reported by Czuba and others (2010) along reaches of the Puyallup River (VM 19–22) where levee confinement has recently been removed was most likely an artifact of methodologic bias. The Puyallup, Mowich, and Carbon Rivers drain five distinct glaciated watersheds on the flanks of Mount Rainier, four of which were assessed in this study. All four watersheds were impacted by an extreme November 2006 rainstorm. Between 2002 and 2008, debris flows occurred in all four headwater areas, collectively eroding at least 2.1 million yd3 of sediment. These debris flows formed distinct deposits one to two miles downstream of source areas, depositing 30-50 percent of the material eroded upstream. From 2008 to 2022, no headwater debris flows were observed and overall rates of geomorphic change in the headwaters were low. Rivers eroded into debris flow deposits emplaced over the 2002–08 interval, but re-deposited equivalent volumes of material within a half mile downstream. Stage-discharge relations at five streamgages on upland rivers draining Mount Rainier show either net channel incision or dynamic variability with no long-term trend over the past 60–100 years. Observations of pervasive river valley erosion and stable or incising trends at long-term streamgages in the upper watershed do not support prior claims of widespread and accelerating aggradation of upland rivers draining Mount Rainier. Erosion and deposition volumes estimated in this report were combined with sediment transport estimates from limited suspended sediment and bedload measurements, estimates of sub-glacial erosion rates, and sediment delivery from non-glacial tributaries to construct watershed-scale sediment budgets for the Puyallup River watershed. During 2004–20, the estimated sediment load entering the depositional lowlands was well balanced by estimated inputs from, in order of relative magnitude, subglacial erosion (33–60 percent of total sediment load), erosion along the major river valleys (25–45 percent), erosion in recently deglaciated headwater areas (7–17 percent) and non-glacial tributaries (3–9 percent). These results are specific to the study period and represent total sediment loads, most of which is fine material carried in suspension. The relative sourcing of sand and gravel may be different than implied by this sediment budget. Downstream of VM 12, comparison of 1907 and 2009 channel surveys show net lowering of the channel thalweg of 4–12 ft. A long-term gage near VM 22 shows lowering of 4–5 ft through the 1960s. Lowering at both locations was inferred to be a channel response to the substantial straightening, and so steepening, of the river during major phases of levee construction through the early and mid-20th century. Application of a simple empirical bedload-discharge power-law relation to an ensemble of model-estimated daily mean discharge records in the lower Puyallup River between 1977 and 2100 projects that annual bedload transport capacity in the lower Puyallup River will increase by 20–60 percent by the middle of the 21st century. Actual changes in bedload transport and deposition rates will depend on concurrent changes in sediment supply and local hydraulics governing deposition. This report presents several key conclusions. First, the persistence and spatial patterns of sand and gravel deposition along the lower Puyallup River support prior claims that deposition is fundamentally caused by decreases in channel slope moving downstream. Given this underlying cause and the abundance of sand and gravel available to be transported downstream, deposition is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Second, despite continued sediment deposition, recent levee setback projects in the lower Puyallup River will likely provide several decades of flood conveyance benefits relative to a no-action alternative. Third, while the rivers linking Mount Rainier to the Puget Sound lowlands have often been discussed as conduits that either pass or accumulate sediment from Mount Rainier, observations from 2002–22 show these river valleys acting as substantial sediment sources, delivering three times more sediment than recently deglaciated headwater areas on Mount Rainier. While the persistence and underlying cause of recent river valley erosion remain unknown, sediment storage dynamics along these river valleys are likely to be a major control on sand and gravel delivery to the lower watershed.

EarthArXiv↗
USGS2012

The United States National Climate Assessment - Alaska Technical Regional Report

The Alaskan landscape is changing, both in terms of effects of human activities as a consequence of increased population, social and economic development and their effects on the local and broad landscape; and those effects that accompany naturally occurring hazards such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Some of the most prevalent changes, however, are those resulting from a changing climate, with both near term and potential upcoming effects expected to continue into the future. Alaska's average annual statewide temperatures have increased by nearly 4°F from 1949 to 2005, with significant spatial variability due to the large latitudinal and longitudinal expanse of the State. Increases in mean annual temperature have been greatest in the interior region, and smallest in the State's southwest coastal regions. In general, however, trends point toward increases in both minimum temperatures, and in fewer extreme cold days. Trends in precipitation are somewhat similar to those in temperature, but with more variability. On the whole, Alaska saw a 10-percent increase in precipitation from 1949 to 2005, with the greatest increases recorded in winter. The National Climate Assessment has designated two well-established scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nakicenovic and others, 2001) as a minimum set that technical and author teams considered as context in preparing portions of this assessment. These two scenarios are referred to as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 and B1 scenarios, which assume either a continuation of recent trends in fossil fuel use (A2) or a vigorous global effort to reduce fossil fuel use (B1). Temperature increases from 4 to 22°F are predicted (to 2070-2099) depending on which emissions scenario (A2 or B1) is used with the least warming in southeast Alaska and the greatest in the northwest. Concomitant with temperature changes, by the end of the 21st century the growing season is expected to lengthen by 15-25 days in some areas of Alaska, with much of that corresponding with earlier spring snow melt. Future projections of precipitation (30-80 years) over Alaska show an increase across the State, with the largest changes in the northwest and smallest in the southeast. Because of increasing temperatures and growing season length, however, increased precipitation may not correspond with increased water availability, due to temperature related increased evapotranspiration. The extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s, with stronger trends noted since the late 1980s. Alaska has experienced similar trends, with a strong decrease in snow cover extent occurring in May. When averaged across the State, the disappearance of snow in the spring has occurred from 4 to 6 days earlier per decade, and snow return in fall has occurred approximately 2 days later per decade. This change appears to be driven by climate warming rather than a decrease in winter precipitation, with average winter temperatures also increasing by about 2.5°F. The extent of sea ice has been declining, as has been widely published in both national and scientific media outlets, and is projected to continue to decline during this century. The observed decline in annual sea ice minimum extent (September) has occurred more rapidly than was predicted by climate models and has been accompanied by decreases in ice thickness and in the presence of multi-year ice. This decrease was first documented by satellite imagery in the late 1970s for the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and is projected to continue, with the potential for the disappearance of summer sea ice by mid- to late century. A new phenomenon that was not reported in previous assessments is ocean acidification. Uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by oceans has a significant effect on marine biogeochemistry by reducing seawater pH. Ocean acidification is of particular concern in Alaska, because cold sea water absorbs CO2 more rapidly than warm water, and a decrease in sea ice extent has allowed increased sea surface exposure and more uptake of CO2 into these northern waters. Ocean acidification will likely affect the ability of organisms to produce and maintain shell material, such as aragonite or calcite (calcium carbonate minerals structured from carbonate ions), required by many shelled organism, from mollusks to corals to microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Direct biological effects in Alaska further along the food chain have yet to be studied and may vary among organisms. Some of the potentially most significant changes to Alaska that could result from a changing climate are the effects on the terrestrial cryosphere - particularly glaciers and permafrost. Alaskan glaciers are changing at a rapid rate, the primary driver appearing to be temperature. Statewide, glaciers lost 13 cubic miles of ice annually from the 1950s to the 1990s, and that rate doubled in the 2000s. However, like temperature and precipitation, glacier ice loss is not spatially uniform; most glaciers are losing mass, yet some are growing (for example Hubbard Glacier in southeast Alaska). Alaska glaciers with the most rapid loss are those terminating in sea water or lakes. With this increasing rate of melt, the contribution of surplus fresh water entering into the oceans from Alaska's glaciers, as well as those in neighboring British Columbia, Canada, is approximately 20 percent of that contributed by the Greenland Ice Sheet. Permafrost degradation (that is, the thawing of ice-rich soils) is currently (2012) impacting infrastructure and surface-water availability in areas of both discontinuous and continuous ground ice. Over most of the State, the permafrost is warming, with increasing temperatures broadly consistent with increasing air temperatures. On the Arctic coastal plain of Alaska, permafrost temperatures showed some cooling in the 1950s and 1960s but have been followed by a roughly 5°F increase since the 1980s. Many areas in the continuous permafrost zone have seen increases in temperature in the seasonally active layer and a decrease in re-freezing rates. Changes in the discontinuous permafrost zone are initially much more observable due to the resulting thermokarst terrain (land surface formed as ice rich permafrost thaws), most notable in boreal forested areas. Climate warming in Alaska has potentially broad implications for human health and food security, especially in rural areas, as well as increased risk for injury with changing winter ice conditions. Additionally, such warming poses the potential for increasing damage to existing water and sanitation facilities and challenges for development of new facilities, especially in areas underlain by permafrost. Non-infectious and infectious diseases also are becoming an increasing concern. For example, from 1999 to 2006 there was a statistically significant increase in medical claims for insectbite reactions in five of six regions of Alaska, with the largest percentage increase occurring in the most northern areas. The availability and quality of subsistence foods, normally considered to be very healthy, may change due to changing access, changing habitats, and spoilage of meat in food storage cellars. These and other trends and potential outcomes resulting from a changing climate are further described in this report. In addition, we describe new science leadership activities that have been initiated to address and provide guidance toward conducting research aimed at making available information for policy makers and land management agencies to better understand, address, and plan for changes to the local and regional environment. This report cites data in both metric and standard units due to the contributions by numerous authors and the direct reference of their data.

Alaska↗
USGS2011

Assessment of Hyporheic Zone, Flood-Plain, Soil-Gas, Soil, and Surface-Water Contamination at the McCoys Creek Chemical Training Area, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2009-2010

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Army Environmental and Natural Resources Management Office of the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Georgia, assessed the hyporheic zone, flood plain, soil gas, soil, and surface water for contaminants at the McCoys Creek Chemical Training Area (MCTA) at Fort Gordon, from October 2009 to September 2010. The assessment included the detection of organic contaminants in the hyporheic zone, flood plain, soil gas, and surface water. In addition, the organic contaminant assessment included the analysis of organic compounds classified as explosives and chemical agents in selected areas. Inorganic contaminants were assessed in soil and surface-water samples. The assessment was conducted to provide environmental contamination data to the U.S. Army at Fort Gordon pursuant to requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part B Hazardous Waste Permit process. Ten passive samplers were deployed in the hyporheic zone and flood plain, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and octane were detected above the method detection level in every sampler. Other organic compounds detected above the method detection level in the hyporheic zone and flood-plain samplers were trichloroethylene, and cis- and trans- 1, 2-dichloroethylene. One trip blank detected TPH below the method detection level but above the nondetection level. The concentrations of TPH in the samplers were many times greater than the concentrations detected in the blank; therefore, all other TPH concentrations detected are considered to represent environmental conditions. Seventy-one soil-gas samplers were deployed in a grid pattern across the MCTA. Three trip blanks and three method blanks were used and not deployed, and TPH was detected above the method detection level in two trip blanks and one method blank. Detection of TPH was observed at all 71 samplers, but because TPH was detected in the trip and method blanks, TPH was censored and, therefore, only 7 of the 71 samplers were reported as detecting TPH. In addition, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylene were detected above the method detection level in 22 samplers. Other compounds detected above the method detection level included naphthalene, octane, undecane, tridecane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, chloroform, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Subsequent to the soil-gas survey, five locations with elevated contaminant mass were selected and a passive sampler was deployed at those locations to detect the presence of organic compounds classified as explosives or chemical agents. No explosives or chemical agents were detected above the method detection level, but some compounds were detected below the method detection level but above the nondetection level. Dimethyl disulfide, benzothiazole, chloroacetophenones, and para-chlorophenyl methyl sulfide were all detected below the method detection level but above the nondetection level. The compounds 2,4-dinitrotoluene, and para-chlorophenyl methyl sulfone were detected in samplers but also were detected in trip blanks and are not considered as present in the MCTA. The same five locations that were selected for sampling of explosives and chemical agents were selected for soil sampling. Metal concentrations in composite soil samples collected at five locations from land surface to a depth of 6 inches did not exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for Industrial Soil. Concentrations in some compounds were higher than the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control background levels for nearby South Carolina, including aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and potassium. A surface-water sample was collected from McCoys Creek and analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and inorganic compounds (metals). No volatile organic compounds and (or) semivolatile organic compounds were detected at levels above the maximum contaminant level of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Primary Drinking Water Standard, and no inorganic compounds exceeded the maximum contaminant level of the USEPA National Primary Drinking Water Standard or the Georgia In-Stream Water-Quality Standard. Iron was the only inorganic compound detected in the surface-water sample (578 micrograms per liter) that exceeded the USEPA National Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 300 micrograms per liter.

Georgia↗
USGS2024

Developing and implementing an International Macroseismic Scale (IMS) for earthquake engineering, earthquake science, and rapid damage assessment

Executive Summary Macroseismic observations and analysis connect our collective seismological past with the present and the present to the future by facilitating hazard estimates and communicating the effects of ground shaking to a wide variety of audiences across the ages. Invaluable ground shaking and building damage information is gained through standardized, systematic approaches for assigning intensities and, importantly, sharing and archiving those assignments in a reproducible form. The applications for these assignments are far reaching. Traditional macroseismic surveys provide vital constraints on critical aspects of earthquakes and their effects on society, whereas internet-based macroseismic datasets are extremely valuable for real-time earthquake situational awareness, and they contribute to later engineering loss and risk analyses. These important applications of macroseismic observations would be helped by revisiting traditional macroseismic surveys for modern environments, standardizing internet-based collection strategies, and ensuring compatibility between traditional and internet-based approaches of macroseismic data collection. Even with best practices, we have identified several limitations with modern macroseismic data collection approaches, particularly from the U.S. Geological Survey's perspective. First, whereas crowdsourced, internet-based intensities such as “Did You Feel It?” are robust and definitive for lower intensities, they are poorly defined above intensity VII, where damage observations may require expert knowledge of each building’s structural system. Second, in the United States, we use the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, which is consistent with—yet inferior to—the more recently developed European Macroseismic Scale (EMS–98; Grünthal and others, 1998). Similarly, New Zealand uses the New Zealand MMI Scale (Dowrick and others, 2008), which lacks detail on how to assign intensities above MMI VIII. The EMS–98 fundamentally advanced the science of macroseismic intensity assignment by requiring quantitative assessments at each location through consistent application on statistical ranges of well-defined damage grades to building-specific vulnerability classes. Lastly, the United States and New Zealand no longer have professionals dedicated to conducting traditional macroseismic field surveys, so a strategy is needed for allowing postearthquake building inspectors and insurance loss assessors to contribute to intensity assignments. The goals of our International Macroseismic Scale workshop were thus twofold. First, harmonize the MMI Scale with EMS–98 for the United States and New Zealand—which share several similar building types—by considering those structures and associated damage grades that are not well represented in the current EMS–98 building vulnerability class table. Second, begin to formalize the process of augmenting EMS–98 with new regional building classes and damage grades toward the development of a macroseismic scale that can be used globally, beyond the United States and New Zealand. Such an effort necessarily requires reviewing and expanding the original EMS–98 explanatory documents and consideration of any required revisions. We can build on the shoulders of giants in that a few of the original EMS–98 developers and experts participated in and were integral to our workshop. Their background and guidance were key in moving forward toward an international scale. We agreed that additional building vulnerability classes, damage grades, and written and pictorial descriptions are necessary and ideally accompanied by a detailed paper trail for other nations to follow. If we can improve the macroseismic assignment process in both nations, we can also aim to refine the process of collecting postearthquake impact data, a boon to many engineering and financial concerns. The benefits of a truly International Macroseismic Scale are considerable for both the engineering and seismology communities. A modern macroseismic scale requires more deliberate archival damage data collection, motivating more consistent and accessible postevent datasets that would have applications beyond the specific event. Applying field-collected building damage data toward macroseismic assignments would allow for increased coordination between engineering reconnaissance teams and local inspectors in collecting such data for official purposes. In addition, rapid and consistent intensity assignments globally would enable more accurate ShakeMaps—and thus improved earthquake engineering and geotechnical forensics, loss and risk estimates, and correlations between macroseismic intensity and ground motion parameters. A brief summary of the Powell Center IMS workshop was published by Wald and others (2023) in the magazine Eos. This Open-File Report describes the workshop, its discussions, and its outcomes in detail. In summarizing the workshop, we have added important background material and reflections for proper context.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Strategic directions for U.S. Geological Survey water science, 2012-2022 - Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that was begun in the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). The report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Strategic Science Plan is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences . The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 130-year history. Nine priority actions are presented in the report, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions listed throughout the report. Priority actions were developed as a means of providing the audience of this report with a list for focused attention, even if resources and time limit the ability of managers to address all of the strategic actions in the report. Priority actions focus on the following: Improve integrated science planning for water. Expand and enhance water-resource monitoring networks. Characterize the water cycle through development of state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D hydrogeologic framework models at multiple scales. Clarify the linkage between human water use (engineered hydrology) and the water cycle (natural hydrology). Advance ecological flow science. Provide flood-inundation science and information. Develop rapid deployment teams for water-related emergencies. Conduct integrated watershed assessment, research, and modeling. Deliver water data and analyses to the Nation. The body of the report is presented as a hierarchal set of 5 goals, 14 objectives, and 27 strategic actions that the USGS should undertake to advance water science through year 2022. The goals deal with: Providing society the information it needs regarding the amount and quality of water in all components of the water cycle at high temporal and spatial resolution, nationwide; Advancing our understanding of processes that determine water availability; Predicting changes in the quantity and quality of water resources in response to changing climate, population, land use, and management scenarios; Anticipating and responding to water-related emergencies and conflicts; and Delivering timely hydrologic data, analyses, and decision-support tools seamlessly across the Nation to support water-resource decisions. Scientific information produced on water resources would be without value if it were not communicated to society in a fashion that can inform decisions and actions. Therefore, the chapter following the goals describes how the USGS should inform, involve, and educate society about the science it produces. This includes discussions on local outreach and the use of social media for effective communication. This report concludes with a chapter devoted to the crosscutting science issues of the Water Mission Area with the other USGS Mission Areas: Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health Science, and Natural Hazards. Not one of these Mission Areas stands alone—all must work together and integrate their actions to fulfill the USGS science mission for the future. This final chapter identifies the important linkages that must be realized and maintained for this integration to occur.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2024

Special topic—Unoccupied aircraft systems

Introduction Unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) increasingly support volcano monitoring and eruption response activities in the United States and abroad (James and others, 2020). Advances in UAS platforms and miniaturization of sensors over the past decade have expanded the use of this technology for a wide range of applications within volcanology (Jordan, 2019; James and others, 2020). UAS can greatly enhance existing ground-, aerial-, and satellite-based observation and in situ monitoring networks at volcanoes by providing new avenues for data collection in terms of access, resolution, and timing. UAS can collect data in difficult and hazardous environments, reducing risk to occupied aircraft and (or) ground crews; support the generation of dense time series of data through frequent, low-cost, high-resolution surveys; and provide real-time, on-demand measurements at volcanic systems for indicators such as gas, thermal output, and topographic change without the need to wait for contracted aerial flight services or satellite orbit intervals. During the 2018 response to the Kīlauea eruption on the Island of Hawaiʻi, UAS were used extensively and successfully to monitor, track, investigate, and (or) warn of ongoing volcanic activity (fig. L1; Neal and others, 2019). Throughout the eruption, the UAS team was able to provide data products rapidly to emergency managers for situational awareness and to scientists for quantitative hazard assessment (Diefenbach and others, 2018). Over the course of 4 months, more than 1,200 UAS missions were flown and yielded critical data that included (1) live video to emergency operations centers in Hilo and Honolulu for situational awareness; (2) gas emission rates, compositions, and concentrations; (3) repeat nadir videos over sections of the lava channel to support measurements of lava effusion rate; (4) oblique videos for hazards assessment and outreach; and (5) photogrammetry surveys to create very high-resolution topographic models and orthophoto mosaics (Diefenbach and others, 2018). In coming years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) plans to expand its fleet of UAS, associated sensors, and remote pilots to enhance volcano monitoring and response capabilities. Currently (2023), USGS operational capabilities are restricted to small class UAS (sUAS; less than [<] 55 pounds) that are limited in range, payload capacity, and flight duration. Additionally, USGS-piloted platforms are restricted to the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Aviation Services approved fleet, which includes a limited number of small and medium multi-rotor aircraft and vertical take-off and landing fixed-wing aircraft ( https://www.doi.gov/aviation/uas/fleet ). Each type of platform has advantages and disadvantages. Small rotor-wing quadcopters are fast to deploy, can be carried in a backpack, and are highly maneuverable, but are typically only equipped with a small camera and have a minimal flight range. Medium rotor-wing hexacopters can carry larger payloads (< 20 kilograms [kg]) and varied sensors, but, with the drawback of minimal flight time (<30 minutes), they typically have similar range capabilities to their smaller counterparts and are not as easily deployable. Fixed-wing platforms provide relatively long endurance (<60 minutes) and range and, with the vertical take-off and landing capabilities, can launch and land in relatively small spaces; however, they have less maneuverability and hovering capability than the rotor-wing platforms. Although the 2018 Kīlauea response showed the benefit of the current UAS fleet, all platforms have limited range [<10 kilometers (km)], such that operators must be stationed relatively close to the region of interest. To expand UAS monitoring capabilities, VHP staff have been working closely with industry partners and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop a next-generation UAS for volcano monitoring (Kern and others, 2020). This ruggedized, mid-range (>20 km), multiparametric (gas and photogrammetry) UAS has been developed to meet volcano monitoring needs, particularly at less accessible, more dangerous stratovolcanoes. It is expected in the coming years that additional UAS platforms with new and smaller sensors will expand our capabilities to meet the Nation’s volcano monitoring objectives.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2024

Monitoring marine eruptions

Introduction Submarine volcanoes produce much of the same seismicity and eruptive activity as subaerial volcanoes and can pose hazards to society. Although they can be monitored with similar techniques and methods as described in other chapters of this volume, their submerged location brings unique challenges. This chapter addresses these challenges and provides recommendations for monitoring volcanoes fully or partly in marine environments to meet the capabilities described in other chapters of this volume. The United States and its territories host dozens of submarine volcanoes with most (around 60) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately 20 of the Northern Mariana Islands submarine volcanoes are known to be hydrothermally active, and 10 have confirmed eruptions since the 1950s (for example, Baker and others, 2008; Tepp and others, 2019a). Nine of those volcanoes were considered by the National Volcanic Threat Assessment (Ewert and others, 2018) to have a combination of eruptive type and summit depth that poses a higher risk of hazardous eruptions, although only one was listed as a moderate (level 3) threat. Other notable submarine volcanoes of interest to the United States that have historically erupted are Axial Seamount off the Washington State coast, Kamaʻehuakanaloa in Hawaiʻi, and Vailuluʻu seamount in American Samoa. All of these, however, have a low risk of hazards because of their depth (greater than 600 meters below sea level) and eruptive type and so are not included in the National Volcanic Threat Assessment. In addition to submarine volcanoes, the submerged flanks of island volcanoes can also be a source of hazardous submarine eruptions—for example, the 1877 eruption of Mauna Loa, Hawai‘i, in Kealakekua Bay (Wanless and others, 2006). The most notable submarine eruption in recent times was the 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in Tonga, which was one of the largest eruptions on Earth in the past 100 years. It created a massive volcanic plume, unprecedented shock waves, and far-reaching tsunami (Lynett and others, 2022). Other recent submarine eruptions in the Pacific Ocean Basin have produced subaerial plumes that reached aircraft heights (Carey and others, 2014) and large pumice rafts that can affect marine traffic and harbors (for example, Jutzeler and others, 2014; Kornei, 2019). These examples illustrate the potential hazards of major submarine eruptions. Yet, submarine volcanoes are largely unmonitored, and many eruptions occur that are unnoticed or only identified hours or days afterward. Within U.S. territory, submarine volcanoes in the Northern Mariana Islands have been known to produce eruptive activity that can affect society. Reports from fishermen and other marine vessels in the Northern Mariana Islands have noted underwater explosions, sea-surface discoloration, and bubbling water, all of which are known to be signs of submarine volcanic activity. South Sarigan seamount, located about 160 kilometers (km) north of Saipan, erupted in 2010 from greater than 150 meters below the sea surface, resulting in a gas and ash plume that reached more than 11.9 km into the atmosphere (for example, Searcy, 2013; Embley and others, 2014), high enough to affect international air traffic. Precursory and co-eruptive seismicity was detected on the regional Northern Mariana Islands seismic network (Searcy, 2013) and on global monitoring instruments (Green and others, 2013). Monitoring of submarine volcanoes is best accomplished with marine-based instrumentation, which is also useful for monitoring small island volcanoes that may not have the land area necessary for comprehensive subaerial monitoring. The primary marine-based instrumentation used for submarine volcanoes includes ocean-bottom pressure sensors to assess sea-floor deformation, ocean-bottom seismometers (OBSs) to detect seismicity, and both moored and ocean-bottom hydrophones to detect submarine explosions. Other sensors offer important monitoring data, such as turbidity, temperature, and chemistry of hydrothermal emissions. Marine-based instruments are typically deployed in campaign-style networks with no real-time telemetry owing to cost considerations and technical limitations. However, when necessary, marine instruments can be operated in real time using cables to transmit data to land-based facilities; other technologies for this purpose are in use or in development, such as acoustic transmission from the instrument to a moored buoy (Matsumoto and others, 2016) and a winch-based system with a satellite antenna that is part of the instrument mooring (Matsumoto and others, 2019). Emerging technologies for marine-based monitoring may be considered as part of a future monitoring plan. These technologies include ocean gliders and floats with on-board hydrophones that have been used to record earthquakes and submarine eruptions (for example, Matsumoto and others, 2013; Sukhovich and others, 2015) and fiber-optic cables that have been used as strainmeters to detect earthquakes (for example, Marra and others, 2018; Lindsey and others, 2019). Land-based instruments and satellites can also provide some capability for monitoring submarine volcanoes, but they provide more limited observations than marine-based instrumentation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2023

Compound flood model for the lower Nooksack River and delta, western Washington—Assessment of vulnerability and nature-based adaptation opportunities to mitigate higher sea level and stream flooding

Higher sea level and stream runoff associated with climate change is expected to lead to greater lowland flooding across the Pacific Northwest. Increases in stream runoff that range from 20 to 32 percent by the 2040s and from 52 to 72 percent by the 2080s is expected to steadily increase flood risk. Flood risk is also expected to increase in response to the landward shift in high tides and storm surge, which will retard downstream conveyance. The combination of higher stream runoff, which is expected to drive greater fluvial sediment delivery to the coast, and more frequent, higher coastal waters relative to present-day (2023) levels, which will retard streamflow, is projected to cause more sedimentation across coastal and estuarine systems, exacerbating the flood risk. In the Nooksack River delta of western Washington, as in many Puget Sound deltas, resilient adaptation planning to mitigate impacts to community assets and infrastructure, nationally essential agricultural areas, and valued habitats and restoration investments that support endangered and threatened salmon recovery are underway but are in need of more informed projections of compound flood hazards. A Delft3D Flexible Mesh hydrodynamic model was constructed and used to assess changes in the extent, frequency, and timing of flood exposure associated with higher sea level and stream runoff projected to occur in the 2040s and 2080s. The model was also used to evaluate the change in and potential mitigating effects to flood exposure associated with individual and cumulative salmon-habitat-restoration strategies. Model simulations also evaluated the sensitivity of sedimentation to the individual and cumulative effects of higher fluvial delivery, trapping by sea-level rise, and changes in hydrodynamics associated with the rerouting of flows by proposed restoration strategies. The model performed well, having mean absolute errors for water levels below 1 foot (0.3 meters) when tested during a 2-year period for two recent flood events of record, the February 2, 2020, “Super Bowl flood” and the January 8, 2009, stream flood, both of which caused substantial flooding and damage across the study area. Fluvial discharge was found to dominate flood hazard at higher elevations in the study area, whereas near the coast, sea-level rise is computed to turn a less extreme 2-year (50 percent annual exceedance probability [AEP]) bankfull streamflow, which, at present (2023), causes nuisance flooding, into a more extreme 5-year (20 percent AEP) and 10 percent AEP stream-flood event by the 2050s and 2100, respectively. The February 2020 Super Bowl flood was calculated to be a 10-year or 10 percent AEP peak-flow event, and the January 2009 flood was calculated to be a 25-year (4 percent AEP) peak-flow event. Extreme events such as the February 2020 Super Bowl flood and the January 2009 flood caused extensive damage across the Nooksack River floodplain, and model computations predict these magnitudes of events would have notably greater effect in the 2040s and 2080s in response to higher projected sea level and stream runoff. The modeled January 2009 flood is predicted to transform into a flood event, causing flood exposure that is comparable to the 100-year or 1 percent AEP flood by the 2040s. The modeled January 2009 flood is also predicted to exceed the flood exposure of the recent November 16, 2021, flood, which caused substantial damage in the lower Nooksack River floodplain and restricted access for emergency-management efforts on important arterial roadways in the area; the measured peak discharge during the November 16, 2021, flood exceeded that of the January 2009 flood. Two of several identified alternative strategies that reroute floodwaters to restore salmon habitat were projected to reduce exposure to the increasingly impactful 10 and 4 percent AEP stream-flood events through the 2080s. The effects of the suggested alternatives, however, were found to reduce flow velocities, promote additional sedimentation, and reduce flow conveyance in the main-stem Nooksack River, a concern to flood-management efforts, navigation, and fishing. The model also suggests that main-stem channel sedimentation is likely, given projected climate change. Higher stream runoff that increases fluvial-sediment delivery and higher sea levels that retard downstream flow are expected to lead to greater sedimentation. Lastly, the model was used to assess the sensitivity of flood exposure to the individual and cumulative effects of climate changes, alternative strategies, and sedimentation, including recently observed decadal-scale aggradation patterns. These results indicate that sediment is likely to continue to be a challenge to flood-management efforts and that nature-based alternatives that benefit ecosystem restoration may also mitigate flood exposure for several decades.

Washington↗
USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

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↗
USGS2000

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↗
USGS2002

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↗
USGS1980

Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates : summaries of toxicity tests conducted at Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory, 1965-78

Acute toxicity is a major subject of research at Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory for evaluating the impact of toxic chemicals on fishery resources. The Laboratory has played a leading role in developing research technology for toxicity testing and data interpretation. In 1965-78, more than 400 chemicals were tested against a variety of invertebrates and fish species representative of both cold- and warm-water climates. The use of acute toxicity tests for assessing the potential hazard of chemical contaminants to aquatic organisms is well documented (Boyd 1957; Henderson et al. 1960; Sanders and Cope 1966; Macek and McAllister 1970). Static acute toxicity tests provide rapid and (within limits) reproducible concentration-response curves for estimating toxic effects of chemicals on aquatic organisms. These tests provide a database for determining relative toxicity of a large number of chemicals to a variety of species and for estimating acute effects of chemical spills on natural aquatic systems; they also assist in determining priority and design of additional toxicity studies. Acute toxicity tests usually provide estimates of the exposure concentration causing 50% mortality (LC50) to test organisms during a specified period of time. For certain invertebrates, the effective concentration is based on immobilization, or some other identifiable endpoint, rather than on lethality. The application of the LC50 has gained acceptance among toxicologists and is generally the most highly rated test for assessing potential adverse effects of chemical contaminants to aquatic life (Brungs and Mount 1978; American Institute for Biological Sciences 1978 a ). The literature contains numerous papers dealing with the acute toxicity of chemicals to freshwater organisms. However, there is a tremendous need for a concise compendium of toxicity data covering a large variety of chemicals and test species. This Handbook is a compilation of a large volume of acute toxicity data from the Columbia Laboratory and its field laboratories. It presents definitive acute toxicity data on 271 chemicals tested against a variety of freshwater invertebrates and fishes. The chemicals represent all major groups of pesticides, as well as numerous industrial chemicals. This compilation should serve as a useful database for the many agencies and organizations dealing with research and management programs concerned with the impact of chemicals on aquatic resources. The Columbia Laboratory has played a major role in developing currently used standard methodology for static acute toxicity testing. The use of standardized methodology greatly reduces variation in results. The data presented here have been carefully scrutinized to eliminate tests that failed to follow acceptable procedures. Handling of test organisms and procedures for static toxicity tests followed those described by Lennon and Walker (1964) and Macek and McAllister (1970), and conform well with those recommended by Brauhn and Schoettger (1975) and the Committee on Methods for Toxicity Tests with Aquatic Organisms (1975). The species of fish and invertebrates that were tested are listed in phylogenetic order in Tables 1 and 2. Fish were obtained from Federal and State hatcheries as either eggs or fry. Original stocks of invertebrates were collected and cultured from wild populations with no known source of contamination; these populations were replenished regularly. The invertebrates were cultured in the Laboratory by methods similar to those described by Sanders and Cope (1966). Test chemicals usually consisted of technical or analytical grade samples of known purity. Formulations of the chemicals were also tested when available. When purity of test chemicals was known, all calculated concentrations were based on percent active ingredients. Stock solutions were prepared immediately before each test, with commercial grade acetone as the carrier solvent. Occasionally, ethanol or dimethyl-formamide was substituted. Solvent concentrations did not exceed 0.5 mL/L in final dilution water. Test water (dilution water) was reconstituted from deionized water of at least 10 6 ohms resistivity by the addition of appropriate reagent grade chemicals (Marking 1969). Water was buffered to maintain a pH of 7.2 to 7.5, an alkalinity of 30 to 35 mg/L, and a hardness of 40 to 50 mg/L as CaCO 3 . Test water was mixed thoroughly and aerated before transfer into test chambers. Fish were acclimated to dilution water by gradually changing the water in acclimated tanks from 100% well water to 100% reconstituted water over a 1- to 3-day period at the desired testing temperature. Invertebrates were acclimated from well water to dilution water over a 4- to 6-h period. Toxicity tests were conducted under static conditions without aeration, and the organisms were not fed during acclimation or testing. Temperature of test solutions was maintained within ± 1°C of that required for a given test. Toxicity tests with fish were conducted in 18.9-liter (5-gal) wide-mouthed jars containing 15 liters of test solution. Fingerling fish weighing 0.2 to 1.5 g were tested at each concentration. Caution was taken not to exceed 0.8 g of test organisms per liter of solution. Duplicate test chambers were used to accommodate larger fish. Test chambers varied in size for invertebrates, depending on the species used; volume of test solution ranged from 0.25 to 4 liters. At least 10 organisms were exposed to each concentration for all definitive tests. At least six concentrations were used per toxicity test. The tests began upon initial exposure to the toxicant and continued for 96 h. Immobilization tests with invertebrates were conducted for only 48 h. The number of dead or affected organisms in each test chamber were recorded and the dead organisms were removed every 24 h; general observations on the condition of test organisms were also recorded at these times. Toxicity data were analyzed by a statistical method described by Litchfield and Wilcoxon (1949) to determine LC50 (theoretical estimate of the concentration lethal to 50% of the test animals) and 95% confidence intervals. This method is recommended by the American Public Health Association (1971) and by Sprague (1969) for determining median lethal concentrations. The procedure is easily modified for computing a single LC50 when replicate tests are performed.

Resource Publication↗