Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Natural 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.

225 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS2016

Transport and deposition of asbestos-rich sediment in the Sumas River, Whatcom County, Washington

Heavy sediment loads in the Sumas River of Whatcom County, Washington, increase seasonal turbidity and cause locally acute sedimentation. Most sediment in the Sumas River is derived from a deep-seated landslide of serpentinite that is located on Sumas Mountain and drained by Swift Creek, a tributary to the Sumas River. This mafic sediment contains high amounts of naturally occurring asbestiform chrysotile. A known human-health hazard, asbestiform chrysotile comprises 0.25–37 percent, by mass, of the total suspended sediment sampled from the Sumas River as part of this study, which included part of water year 2011 and all of water years 2012 and 2013. The suspended-sediment load in the Sumas River at South Pass Road, 0.6 kilometers (km) downstream of the confluence with Swift Creek, was 22,000 tonnes (t) in water year 2012 and 49,000 t in water year 2013. The suspended‑sediment load at Telegraph Road, 18.8 km downstream of the Swift Creek confluence, was 22,000 t in water year 2012 and 27,000 t in water year 2013. Although hydrologic conditions during the study were wetter than normal overall, the 2-year flood peak was only modestly exceeded in water years 2011 and 2013; runoff‑driven geomorphic disturbance to the watershed, which might have involved mass wasting from the landslide, seemed unexceptional. In water year 2012, flood peaks were modest, and the annual streamflow was normal. The fact that suspended-sediment loads in water year 2012 were equivalent at sites 0.6 and 18.8 km downstream of the sediment source indicates that the conservation of suspended‑sediment load can occur under normal hydrologic conditions. The substantial decrease in suspended-sediment load in the downstream direction in water year 2013 was attributed to either sedimentation in the intervening river reach, transfer to bedload as an alternate mode of sediment transport, or both. The sediment in the Sumas River is distinct from sediment in most other river systems because of the large percentage of asbestiform chrysotile in suspension. The suspended sediment carried by the Sumas River consists of three major components: (1) a relatively dense, largely non-flocculated material that settles rapidly out of suspension; (2) a lighter component containing relatively high proportions of flocculated material, much of it composed of asbestiform chrysotile; and (3) individual chrysotile fibers that are too small to flocculate or settle out, and remain in suspension as wash load (these fibers are on the order of microns in length and tenths of microns in diameter). Whereas the bulk density of the first (heaviest) component of suspended sediment was between 1.5 and 1.6 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3), the bulk density of the flocculated material was an order of magnitude lower (0.16 g/cm3), even after 24 hours of settling. Soon after immersion in water, the fresh chrysotile fibers derived from the Swift Creek landslide seem to flocculate readily into large bundles, or floccules, that exhibit settling velocities characteristic of coarse silts and fine sands (30 and 250 micrometers). In quiescent water within this river system, the floccules settle out quickly, but still leave between 2.4 and 19.5 million chrysotile fibers per liter in the clear overlying water. Consistent with the results from previous laboratory research, the amounts of asbestiform chrysotile in the water column in Swift Creek, as well as in the Sumas River close to and downstream of its confluence with Swift Creek, were determined to be directly correlated with pH. This observation offers a possible alternative to either turbidity or suspended‑sediment concentration as a surrogate for the concentration of fresh asbestiform chrysotile in suspension. Continued movement and associated erosion of the landslide through mass wasting and runoff will maintain large sediment loads in Swift Creek and in the Sumas River for the foreseeable future. Given the present channel morphology of the river system, aggradation (that is, sediment accumulation) in Swift Creek and the Sumas River are also likely to continue.

Washington↗
USGS2024

Special topic—Eruption plumes and clouds

Introduction Explosive eruptions create plumes of volcanic ash and gas that can rise more than 30,000 feet (9.1 kilometers [km]) above sea level within minutes of eruption onset. The resulting clouds disperse under prevailing winds and may cause hazardous conditions hundreds to thousands of kilometers from the volcano, including in international airspace. Rapid detection and characterization of explosive activity is vital to mitigate the wide-ranging effects of volcanic ash. Ashfall thicknesses as small as a millimeter or so on the ground can affect infrastructure, agriculture, and air quality, requiring extensive clean-up procedures (Schuster, 1981; Warrick and others, 1981, U.S. Geological Survey, 2022). Volcanic clouds also pose substantial threats to aircraft. Since 1953, 88 encounters between airplanes and ash clouds have been documented worldwide (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2015, appendix F), resulting in aircraft damage and, in 9 cases, engine failure (Guffanti and others, 2010). In 1982, two large passenger planes suffered complete engine failure owing to eruptions in Indonesia (Global Volcanism Program, 1982) and a similar incident occurred over Alaska in 1989 (Casadevall, 1994). In all three cases, they were able to restart some engine capability and land safely once they emerged from the ash clouds, although with substantial damage (Guffanti and others, 2010). The clear threat to aviation has led to establishment of nine Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAAC) around the world to monitor and rapidly disseminate information about volcanic eruptions to the aviation community. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories issue the Volcano Observatory Notice for Aviation that informs of preeruptive unrest or eruptive activity. When ash-producing eruptions do occur, volcano observatories work closely with their regional VAAC to ensure consistency and accuracy in eruption onset time, cloud altitude, ash production, and duration as reported in Volcanic Ash Advisories. Explosive volcanism in the United States and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands prompts 50–100 such advisories in any given year (table J1). This collaborative effort is greatly aided by USGS detection and monitoring of eruption clouds to ensure a timely and coordinated response. To support these efforts to provide guidance on ash transport and fallout, the USGS developed the Ash3d volcanic ash dispersion model ( https://vsc-ash.wr.usgs.gov/ash3d-gui ) (Schwaiger and others, 2012). Automated simulations are run daily by the USGS for volcanoes that are in elevated states of unrest, and in response mode when eruptions occur. During eruptions, the model output is provided to local National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices to guide them in the issuance of their information products (such as special weather statements, ashfall advisories, or ashfall warnings), as well as to State and local governments and the public. Characterization of the eruption source is needed to estimate the parameters used to initialize the Ash3d model, and by the Anchorage and Washington VAACs to initialize other dispersion models that inform forecasts for the airborne volcanic cloud. The source parameters that can be provided by observation during an eruption include eruption start time, eruption cloud height over time, and eruption duration. Other, nonobservable source parameters, such as mass eruption rate and grain-size distribution, are based on empirical correlations and study of historical deposits. The goal is to provide a time series of cloud heights, mass eruption rates, and particle-size distributions that accurately reflects current conditions. When feasible, the USGS also provides guidance on the nature of ongoing eruptions and forecasts future activity using petrologic monitoring of collected tephra samples. The aims of providing accurate observable parameters are achieved through analysis of (1) near-real-time meteorological satellite data, (2) ground-based cameras (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–G, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062g.">chapter G , this volume; Orr and others, 2024), (3) weather radar, (4) volcanic lightning detection, and (5) ground-based ash sensors and sampling. Explosive eruptions can be detected by a variety of geophysical monitoring, including infrasound (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–C, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062c.">chapter C , this volume; Lyons and others, 2024) and seismicity (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–B, 9 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062b.">chapter B , this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). However, those methods cannot quantify the altitude, ash content, and dispersal dynamics of resulting volcanic clouds. Ideally, all available sources of monitoring data are synthesized to develop a coherent understanding of eruptive activity. The guidance summarized here provides a framework for characterizing volcanic clouds in the atmosphere and tracking the evolution of explosive eruption dynamics.

Scientific Investigations 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↗
USGS2016

A comparison of observed and predicted ground motions from the 2015 M W 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake

We use 21 strong motion recordings from Nepal and India for the 25 April 2015 moment magnitude (M W ) 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake together with the extensive macroseismic intensity data set presented by Martin et al. (Seism Res Lett 87:957–962, 2015 ) to analyse the distribution of ground motions at near-field and regional distances. We show that the data are consistent with the instrumental peak ground acceleration (PGA) versus macroseismic intensity relationship developed by Worden et al. (Bull Seism Soc Am 102:204–221, 2012 ), and use this relationship to estimate peak ground acceleration from intensities (PGA EMS ). For nearest-fault distances (R RUP < 200 km), PGA EMS is consistent with the Atkinson and Boore (Bull Seism Soc Am 93:1703–1729, 2003 ) subduction zone ground motion prediction equation (GMPE). At greater distances (R RUP > 200 km), instrumental PGA values are consistent with this GMPE, while PGA EMS is systematically higher. We suggest the latter reflects a duration effect whereby effects of weak shaking are enhanced by long-duration and/or long-period ground motions from a large event at regional distances. We use PGA EMS values within 200 km to investigate the variability of high-frequency ground motions using the Atkinson and Boore (Bull Seism Soc Am 93:1703–1729, 2003 ) GMPE as a baseline. Across the near-field region, PGA EMS is higher by a factor of 2.0–2.5 towards the northern, down-dip edge of the rupture compared to the near-field region nearer to the southern, up-dip edge of the rupture. Inferred deamplification in the deepest part of the Kathmandu valley supports the conclusion that former lake-bed sediments experienced a pervasive nonlinear response during the mainshock (Dixit et al. in Seismol Res Lett 86(6):1533–1539, 2015 ; Rajaure et al. in Tectonophysics, 2016 . Ground motions were significantly amplified in the southern Gangetic basin, but were relatively low in the northern basin. The overall distribution of ground motions and damage during the Gorkha earthquake thus reflects a combination of complex source, path, and site effects. We also present a macroseismic intensity data set and analysis of ground motions for the M W 7.3 Dolakha aftershock on 12 May 2015, which we compare to the Gorkha mainshock and conclude was likely a high stress-drop event.

Gorkha District↗
USGS2021

Historical changes in bed elevation and water depth within the Nehalem Bay, Oregon, 1891–2019

Estuaries, at the nexus of rivers and the ocean, are depositional areas that respond to changes in streamflow, tides, sea level, and inputs of sediment from marine and watershed sources. Understanding changes in bed elevations, deposited and eroded sediment, and water depth throughout estuaries is relevant for understanding their present-day status and long-term evolution, identifying potential hazards to human communities, and informing estuarine conservation. In response to observations of sedimentation in the Nehalem Bay, northwestern Oregon, by the Port of Nehalem, the magnitudes and patterns of bathymetric change in the Bay were documented and described by two approaches. The first approach compared changes in bed elevation with estimated volumes of erosion and deposition from overlapping survey data acquired in 1957 and 2019 for the area of the Nehalem Bay from upstream of the Highway 101 bridge to downstream of Fishery Point. The second approach examined changes in water depth for seven zones from the confluence of the North Fork and Nehalem Rivers to the mouth of the Nehalem River using nautical charts (1891, 1947, 1970, 1990, and 2004). These two approaches were used because the bathymetric surveys from 1957 and 2019 could be tied to a common vertical datum, allowing for a direct comparison of changes in bed elevations, whereas the nautical charts could not be tied to a common vertical datum, which limited the analyses to a comparison of changes in water depths over a broader time frame. Bed elevation changes from 1957 to 2019 were assessed from upstream of the Highway 101 bridge to downstream of Fishery Point where the two surveys overlapped (2 square kilometers) using thalweg longitudinal profiles, channel cross sections, and digital elevation models (DEMs) showing the elevation differences between the two surveys (or DEMs of difference). The most prominent change between 1957 and 2019 was the migration of the thalweg (or deepest part of the channel) between the downstream end of Lazarus Island and downstream of Fishery Point; this migration resulted in sediment deposition in the former thalweg and sediment erosion in formerly shallow areas to form the new thalweg. Bed elevation changes in the thalweg also varied longitudinally between 1957 and 2019. The bed elevation of the thalweg in both surveys, however, was generally less than 1 meter (m). The thalweg in the area of overlapping surveys shortened from about 7.0 to 6.7 kilometers in length over that same period. The bed elevation changes between the DEMs showed that maximum erosion and deposition was 4.3 and 4.5 m, respectively. In this same time period, the net change in sediment volume was 230,000 cubic meters (m 3 ), indicating net deposition. However, the error estimated for the 95 percent confidence interval analyses is ±315,000 m 3 , and therefore does not preclude the possibility that net erosion may have occurred. Historical changes in water depth from soundings depicted on nautical charts from 1891, 1947, 1970, 1990, and 2004 were evaluated by assessing spatial and temporal changes for seven zones of the Nehalem Bay. Across all years and zones, water depths ranged from about 0.2 to 9.4 m, whereas median water depths ranged from 0.3 to 6.4 m. Median depths and the range of water depths did not systematically increase or decrease throughout all zones during the same periods. In all nautical charts, the zone at the mouth of the Nehalem River consistently had the deepest soundings (7.9 to 9.4 m) and the greatest range of water depths (7.3 to 8.8 m). Qualitative evaluation of the nautical charts showed minimal changes in the overall shape of the Nehalem Bay. The exception to this observation was at the mouth of the Bay, where two historical outlets to the Pacific Ocean depicted in the 1891 nautical chart were reduced to one outlet following the construction of jetties (1916 and 1918). The results of this study emphasize that bed elevations and water depths within the Nehalem Bay have varied between 1891 and 2019, as illustrated by the lateral and vertical changes in the thalweg and changes in water depths over time. Changes in thalweg position and related patterns of sediment erosion and deposition are expected in the future as the Nehalem Bay continues to respond to changes in tides, sea level, streamflow, and sediment inputs from watershed and marine sources. The results of this study and the surveys from 1957 and 2019 provide a foundation for documenting and evaluating future changes in the Nehalem Bay and prioritizing actions to manage and protect natural resources and recreational access to the Nehalem Bay.

Oregon↗
USGS2018

Northeast

The distinct seasonality of the Northeast’s climate supports a diverse natural landscape adapted to the extremes of cold, snowy winters and warm to hot, humid summers. This natural landscape provides the economic and cultural foundation for many rural communities, which are largely supported by a diverse range of agricultural, tourism, and natural resource-dependent industries (see Ch. 10: Ag & Rural, Key Message 4) . The recent dominant trend in precipitation throughout the Northeast has been towards increases in rainfall intensity, with increases in intensity exceeding those in other regions of the contiguous United States. Further increases in rainfall intensity are expected, with increases in total precipitation expected during the winter and spring but with little change in the summer. Monthly precipitation in the Northeast is projected to be about 1 inch greater for December through April by end of century (2070–2100) under the higher scenario (RCP8.5). Ocean and coastal ecosystems are being affected by large changes in a variety of climate-related environmental conditions. These ecosystems support fishing and aquaculture, tourism and recreation, and coastal communities. Observed and projected increases in temperature, acidification, storm frequency and intensity, and sea levels are of particular concern for coastal and ocean ecosystems, as well as local communities and their interconnected social and economic systems. Increasing temperatures and changing seasonality on the Northeast Continental Shelf have affected marine organisms and the ecosystem in various ways. The warming trend experienced in the Northeast Continental Shelf has been associated with many fish and invertebrate species moving northward and to greater depths. Because of the diversity of the Northeast’s coastal landscape, the impacts from storms and sea level rise will vary at different locations along the coast. Northeastern cities, with their abundance of concrete and asphalt and relative lack of vegetation, tend to have higher temperatures than surrounding regions due to the urban heat island effect. During extreme heat events, nighttime temperatures in the region’s big cities are generally several degrees higher than surrounding regions, leading to higher risk of heat-related death. Urban areas are at risk for large numbers of evacuated and displaced populations and damaged infrastructure due to both extreme precipitation events and recurrent flooding, potentially requiring significant emergency response efforts and consideration of a long-term commitment to rebuilding and adaptation, and/or support for relocation where needed. Much of the infrastructure in the Northeast, including drainage and sewer systems, flood and storm protection assets, transportation systems, and power supply, is nearing the end of its planned life expectancy. Climate-related disruptions will only exacerbate existing issues with aging infrastructure. Sea level rise has amplified storm impacts in the Northeast (Key Message 2), contributing to higher surges that extend farther inland, as demonstrated in New York City in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Service and resource supply infrastructure in the Northeast is at increasing risk of disruption, resulting in lower quality of life, economic declines, and increased social inequality. Loss of public services affects the capacity of communities to function as administrative and economic centers and triggers disruptions of interconnected supply chains (Ch. 16: International, Key Message 1) . Increases in annual average temperatures across the Northeast range from less than 1°F (0.6°C) in West Virginia to about 3°F (1.7°C) or more in New England since 1901. Although the relative risk of death on very hot days is lower today than it was a few decades ago, heat-related illness and death remain significant public health problems in the Northeast. For example, a study in New York City estimated that in 2013 there were 133 excess deaths due to extreme heat. These projected increases in temperature are expected to lead to substantially more premature deaths, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits across the Northeast. For example, in the Northeast we can expect approximately 650 additional premature deaths per year from extreme heat by the year 2050 under either a lower (RCP4.5) or higher (RCP8.5) scenario and from 960 (under RCP4.5) to 2,300 (under RCP8.5) more premature deaths per year by 2090. Communities, towns, cities, counties, states, and tribes across the Northeast are engaged in efforts to build resilience to environmental challenges and adapt to a changing climate. Developing and implementing climate adaptation strategies in daily practice often occur in collaboration with state and federal agencies (e.g., New Jersey Climate Adaptation Alliance 2017, New York Climate Clearinghouse 2017, Rhode Island STORMTOOLS 2017, EPA 2017, CDC 2015 ). Advances in rural towns, cities, and suburban areas include low-cost adjustments of existing building codes and standards. In coastal areas, partnerships among local communities and federal and state agencies leverage federal adaptation tools and decision support frameworks (for example, NOAA’s Digital Coast, USGS’s Coastal Change Hazards Portal, and New Jersey’s Getting to Resilience). Increasingly, cities and towns across the Northeast are developing or implementing plans for adaptation and resilience in the face of changing climate (e.g., EPA 2017 ). The approaches are designed to maintain and enhance the everyday lives of residents and promote economic development. In some cities, adaptation planning has been used to respond to present and future challenges in the built environment. Regional efforts have recommended changes in design standards when building, replacing, or retrofitting infrastructure to account for a changing climate.

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↗