Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Alaska”

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.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Alaska Geochemical Database - Mineral Exploration Tool for the 21st Century - PDF of presentation

The U.S. Geological Survey has created a geochemical database of geologic material samples collected in Alaska. This database is readily accessible to anyone with access to the Internet. Designed as a tool for mineral or environmental assessment, land management, or mineral exploration, the initial version of the Alaska Geochemical Database - U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 637 - contains geochemical, geologic, and geospatial data for 264,158 samples collected from 1962-2009: 108,909 rock samples; 92,701 sediment samples; 48,209 heavy-mineral-concentrate samples; 6,869 soil samples; and 7,470 mineral samples. In addition, the Alaska Geochemical Database contains mineralogic data for 18,138 nonmagnetic-fraction heavy mineral concentrates, making it the first U.S. Geological Survey database of this scope that contains both geochemical and mineralogic data. Examples from the Alaska Range will illustrate potential uses of the Alaska Geochemical Database in mineral exploration. Data from the Alaska Geochemical Database have been extensively checked for accuracy of sample media description, sample site location, and analytical method using U.S. Geological Survey sample-submittal archives and U.S. Geological Survey publications (plus field notebooks and sample site compilation base maps from the Alaska Technical Data Unit in Anchorage, Alaska). The database is also the repository for nearly all previously released U.S. Geological Survey Alaska geochemical datasets. Although the Alaska Geochemical Database is a fully relational database in Microsoft® Access 2003 and 2010 formats, these same data are also provided as a series of spreadsheet files in Microsoft® Excel 2003 and 2010 formats, and as ASCII text files. A DVD version of the Alaska Geochemical Database was released in October 2011, as U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 637, and data downloads are available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/637/ . Also, all Alaska Geochemical Database data have been incorporated into the interactive U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data web portal, available at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/ .

Alaska↗
USGS2009

Geography of Alaska lake districts: Identification, description, and analysis of lake-rich regions of a diverse and dynamic state

Lakes are abundant landforms and important ecosystems in Alaska, but are unevenly distributed on the landscape with expansive lake-poor regions and several lake-rich regions. Such lake-rich areas are termed lake districts and have landscape characteristics that can be considered distinctive in similar respects to mountain ranges. In this report, we explore the nature of lake-rich areas by quantitatively identifying Alaska’s lake districts, describing and comparing their physical characteristics, and analyzing how Alaska lake districts are naturally organized and correspond to climatic and geophysical characteristics, as well as studied and managed by people. We use a digital dataset (National Hydrography Dataset) of lakes greater than 1 hectare, which includes 409,040 individual lakes and represents 3.3 percent of the land-surface area of Alaska. The selection criteria we used to identify lake districts were (1) a lake area (termed limnetic ratio, in percent) greater than the mean for the State, and (2) a lake density (number of lakes per unit area) greater than the mean for the State using a pixel size scaled to the area of interest and number of lakes in the census. Pixels meeting these criteria were grouped and delineated and all groups greater than 1,000 square kilometers were identified as Alaska’s lake districts. These lake districts were described according to lake size-frequency metrics, elevation distributions, geology, climate, and ecoregions to better understand their similarities and differences. We also looked at where lake research and relevant ecological monitoring has occurred in Alaska relative to lake districts and how lake district lands and waters are currently managed. We identified and delineated 20 lake districts in Alaska representing 16 percent of the State, but including 65 percent of lakes and 75 percent of lake area. The largest lake districts identified are the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Arctic Coastal Plain, and Iliamna lake districts with high limnetic ratios of 19, 17, and 21 percent, respectively. The three smallest districts we considered were Tetlin in the eastern interior, Menhiskof on the Alaska Peninsula, and Matanuska–Susitna at the head of Cook Inlet with limnetic ratios of 14, 9, and 9 percent, respectively. Lake density and limnetic ratio were poorly related among lake districts, such that some districts had a few large lakes like Iliamna with Lakes Iliamna and Becharof—the two largest in the State, compared to other districts with many very small lakes like Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta with 111,130 lakes and 63 percent of these less than 10 hectares. Most lake districts are in regions with relatively low precipitation, but temperature regimes varied widely among lake districts. Approximately one-half of lake districts were glaciated during the Pleistocene and similar numbers occur in regions classified as having continuous, discontinuous, and sporadic permafrost, or perennially unfrozen soils. Most districts are at low elevations (less than 250 meters) with two important exceptions being Tetlin with a mean elevation of 530 meters and Ahtna with a mean elevation of 760 meters. These higher elevation districts, particularly Ahtna, had distinct characteristics from other lake districts such as continuous permafrost and Pleistocene glaciation. Several lake districts share similar boundaries to defined ecoregions with lake districts occurring in less than one-half of these 32 ecoregions of Alaska. Most lake districts are lands fully or partly managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, with other land management by the Bureau of Land Management and State and borough government. Much of the U.S. Geological Survey’s lake water-quality sampling efforts has been done in the Arctic Coastal Plain, Matanuska-Susitna, and Iliamna districts but no recorded collections in nine lake districts. Similarly, most lake limnological studies in Alaska were site-specific and represent only a small portion of Alaska’s lake districts. This identification, characterization, and analysis of lake-rich regions may help provide a template to guide future limnological and other scientific research for Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS1956

Summary of reconnaissance for radioactive deposits in Alaska, 1945-1954, and an appraisal of Alaskan uranium possibilities

In the period 1945-1954 over 100 investigations for radioactive source materials were made in Alaska. The nature of these investigations ranged from field examinations of individual prospects or the laboratory analysis of significantly radioactive samples submitted by prospectors to reconnaissance studies of large districts. In this period no deposits of uranium or thorium that would warrant commercial exploitation were discovered. The investigations, however, disclosed that radioactive materials occur in widely scattered areas of Alaska and in widely diverse environments. Many igneous rocks throughout Alaska are weakly radioactive because of uranium- and thorium-bearing accessory minerals, such as allanite, apatite, monazite, sphene, xenotime, and zircon; more rarely the radioactivity of these rocks is due to thorianite or thorite and their uranoan varieties. The felsic rocks, for example, granites and syenites, are generally more radioactive than the mafic igneous rocks. Pegmatites, locally, have also proved to be radioactive, but they have little commercial significance. No primary uranium oxide minerals have been found yet in Alaskan vein deposits, except, perhaps, for a mineral tentatively identified as pitchblende in the Hyder district of southeastern Alaska. However, certain occurrences of secondary uranium minerals, chiefly those of the uranite group, on the Seward Peninsula, in the Russian Mountains, and in the vicinity of Kodiak suggest that pitchblende-type ores may occur at depth beneath zones of alteration. Thorite-bearing veins have been discovered on Prince of Wales Island in southeastern Alaska. Although no deposits or carnotite-type minerals have been found in Alaska, several samples containing such minerals have been submitted by Alaskan prospectors. Efforts to locate the deposits from which these minerals were obtained have been unsuccessful, but review of available geologic data suggests that several Alaskan areas are potentially favorable for carnotite-type deposits. The chief of these areas is the Alaska Peninsula-Cook Inlet area which encompasses most of the reported occurrences of the prospectors' carnotite-type samples. Alaska is also potentially favorable for the occurrence of large bodies of the very low-grade uraniferous sedimentary rocks, such as phosphorites and black shales. This type of deposit, however, has not received much study because of the emphasis on the search for bonanza-type high-grade ores. Uraniferous phosphorites similar to those of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming occur in northern Alaska on the north flank of the Brooks Range; black shales comparable to the uraniferous shales of the Chattanooga formation of southeastern United States have been noted along the Yukon River near the international boundary. Placer deposits in Alaska have some small potential for the production of the radioactive elements as byproducts of gold- and tin-placer mining. the placer area believed to have the relatively greatest potential in Alaska lies in the Kahiltna River valley where concentrates are known to contain such commercial minerals as ilmenite, cassiterite, platinum, and gold in addition to uranothorianite and monazite. The possibilities of the natural fluids--water and petroleum--have not yet been tested in Alaska to any great extent. Studies of fluids are in progress to determine whether they may be used to discover and define areas potentially favorable for the occurrence of uraniferous lodes.

Alaska↗
USGS2012

Cambrian–Ordovician sedimentary rocks of Alaska

Cambrian-Lower Ordovician carbonate rocks that likely formed as part of the Laurentian continental margin, and may thus have been part of the Cambrian-Ordovician great American carbonate bank, occur in east-central Alaska in the Nation Arch area. These strata accumulated on the southwestern margin (present-day coordinates) of the Yukon stable block, a broad area of early Paleozoic carbonate platform deposition in the northern Yukon Territory, and constitute two successions. The first consists of approximately 900 m (∼2950 ft) of shallow-water limestone and dolostone that are in part silicified, laminated, oolitic, and pisolitic, and make up the lower member of the Jones Ridge Limestone. Conodonts, trilobites, archaeo-cyathids, and brachiopods indicate an age of Early Cambrian to early Early Ordovician (Tremadoc; Ibexian) and have Laurentian biogeographic affinities. Upper Ordovician bio-clastic limestone (the upper member of the Jones Ridge Limestone) unconformably overlies these strata. A roughly coeval, but somewhat deeper water, succession crops out near the Jones Ridge Limestone and consists of, in ascending order, the Funnel Creek Limestone, Adams Argillite, and Hillard Limestone. The Funnel Creek (15-400 m [50-1310 ft] thick) is mainly nonfossilif-erous, extensively silicified, commonly oolitic limestone and dolostone and is assumed to be Lower Cambrian in age. It is overlain by argillite, siltstone, cross-laminated quartzite, and oolitic to sandy limestone of the Adams Argillite (90-180 m [295-550 ft] thick). This unit contains the trace fossil Oldhamia and Lower Cambrian archaeocyathids and trilobites that have Siberian affinities. The Hillard (30-150 m [100-490 ft] thick) is chiefly limestone, with local ooids, edgewise and boulder conglomerate, and phosphatic horizons, and likely formed in a platform-margin setting. Trilobites and brachiopods from this unit are Early Cambrian to earliest Ordovician in age and have mainly Laurentian affinities. Slope and/or basinal rocks of the Road River Formation that are as old as Early Ordovician (early middle Arenig; Ibexian) unconformably overlie the Hillard Limestone. Abrupt facies transitions between the two Nation Arch area carbonate successions may reflect relatively steep paleoslopes and/or telescoping of facies by imbricate thrust faults. Carbonate strata of Cambrian–Ordovician age are also found north of the Nation Arch area in the Porcupine terrane. These rocks have been little studied, and their precise Stratigraphic succession and paleogeographic setting are uncertain. The few fossil collections indicate mainly Laurentian affinities and include Cambrian(?) trilobites and Lower and Middle Ordovician conodonts. Lower Paleozoic strata of the Porcupine terrane probably formed at or near the northwestern edge (present-day coordinates) of the Yukon stable block. Cambrian–Ordovician carbonate strata occur widely in northern Alaska (parts of the Arctic Alaska, York, and Seward terranes) and interior Alaska (Farewell terrane). These rocks share distinctive lithologic and faunal features and were deposited in a range of shallow-shelf to basinal environments. Carbonate platform successions in northern and interior Alaska include fossils of both Laurentian and Siberian biotic provinces and may have formed on a single crustal fragment that rifted away from the Siberian craton during the late Proterozoic. These Alaskan strata were most likely in faunal exchange with, but not physically attached to, the great American carbonate bank. Lower–Middle Ordovician carbonate and siliciclastic rocks are also found in the White Mountains, Livengood, and Ruby terranes of interior Alaska, the Alexander terrane in southeastern Alaska, and the Goodnews terrane in southwestern Alaska. These successions were likely not attached to Laurentia during their deposition, although some authors have proposed Laurentian origins for the White Mountains and Livengood terranes. Little detailed information is available on the resource potential of Cambrian–Ordovician successions in Alaska. Most have low porosity and are too thermally mature to be prospective for oil and gas, although a few units in east-central and northern Alaska may have some potential as petroleum source and reservoir rocks. Strata of this age have potential for metallic mineral resources; strata-bound Zn-Pb ± Ag occurrences are known in the Funnel Creek Limestone in east-central Alaska, as well as several units of possible Cambrian and/or Ordovician age in northern and interior Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Haines area, Juneau and Skagway quadrangles, southeast Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 212 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Chilkat, Klehini, Tsirku, and Takhin river drainages, as well as smaller drainages flowing into Chilkat and Chilkoot Inlets near Haines, Skagway Quadrangle, Southeast Alaska. Additionally some samples were also chosen from the Juneau gold belt, Juneau Quadrangle, Southeast Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗
USGS1997

Digital shaded-relief image of Alaska

One of the most spectacular physiographic images of the conterminous United States, and the first to have been produced digitally, is that by Thelin and Pike ( USGS I-2206, 1991 ). The image is remarkable for its crispness of detail and for the natural appearance of the artificial land surface. Our goal has been to produce a shaded-relief image of Alaska that has the same look and feel as the Thelin and Pike image. The Alaskan image could have been produced at the same scale as its lower 48 counterpart (1:3,500,000). But by insetting the Aleutian Islands into the Gulf of Alaska, we were able to print the Alaska map at a larger scale (1:2,500,000) and about the same physical size as the Thelin and Pike image. Benefits of the 1:2,500,000 scale are (1) greater resolution of topographic features and (2) ease of reference to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1987) Alaska Map E and the statewide geologic map (Beikman, 1980), which are both 1:2,500,000 scale. Manually drawn, shaded-relief images of Alaska's land surface have long been available (for example, Department of the Interior, 1909; Raisz, 1948). The topography depicted on these early maps is mainly schematic. Maps showing topographic contours were first available for the entire State in 1953 (USGS, 1:250,000) (J.H. Wittmann, USGS, written commun., 1996). The Alaska Map E was initially released in 1954 in both planimetric (revised in 1973 and 1987) and shaded-relief versions (revised in 1973, 1987, and 1996); topography depicted on the shaded-relief version is based on the 1:250,000-scale USGS topographic maps. Alaska Map E was later modified to include hypsometric tinting by Raven Maps and Images (1989, revised 1993) as copyrighted versions. Other shaded-relief images were produced for The National Geographic Magazine (LaGorce, 1956; 1:3,000,000) or drawn by Harrison (1970; 1:7,500,000) for The National Atlas of the United States. Recently, the State of Alaska digitally produced a shaded-relief image of Alaska at 1:2,500,000 scale (Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 1994), using the 1,000-m digital elevation data set referred to below. An important difference between our image and these previous ones is the method of reproduction: like the Thelin and Pike (1991) image, our image is a composite of halftone images that yields sharp resolution and preserves contrast. Indeed, the first impression of many viewers is that the Alaskan image and the Thelin and Pike image are composites of satellite-generated photographs rather than an artificial rendering of a digital elevation model. A shaded-relief image represents landforms in a natural fashion; that is, a viewer perceives the image as a rendering of reality. Thus a shaded-relief image is intrinsically appealing, especially in areas of spectacular relief. In addition, even subtle physiographic features that reflect geologic structures or the type of bedrock are visible. To our knowledge, some of these Alaskan features have not been depicted before and so the image should provide earth scientists with a new "look" at fundamental geologic features of Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS2016

GIS-based identification of areas that have resource potential for critical minerals in six selected groups of deposit types in Alaska

Alaska has considerable potential for undiscovered mineral resources. This report evaluates potential for undiscovered critical minerals in Alaska. Critical minerals are those for which the United States imports more than half of its total supply and which are largely derived from nations that cannot be considered reliable trading partners. In this report, estimated resource potential and certainty for the state of Alaska are analyzed and mapped for the following six selected mineral deposit groups that may contain one or more critical minerals: (1) rare earth elements-thorium-yttrium-niobium(-uranium-zirconium) [REE-Th-Y-Nb(-U-Zr)] deposits associated with peralkaline to carbonatitic igneous intrusive rocks; (2) placer and paleoplacer gold (Au) deposits that in some places might also produce platinum group elements (PGE), chromium (Cr), tin (Sn), tungsten (W), silver (Ag), or titanium (Ti); (3) platinum group elements(-cobalt-chromium-nickel-titanium-vanadium) [PGE(-Co-Cr-Ni-Ti-V)] deposits associated with mafic to ultramafic intrusive rocks; (4) carbonate-hosted copper(-cobalt-silver-germanium-gallium) [Cu(-Co-Ag-Ge-Ga)] deposits; (5) sandstone-hosted uranium(-vanadium-copper) [U(-V-Cu)] deposits; and (6) tin-tungsten-molybdenum(-tantalum-indium-fluorspar) [Sn-W-Mo(-Ta-In-fluorspar)] deposits associated with specialized granites. This study used a data-driven, geographic information system (GIS)-implemented method to identify areas that have mineral resource potential in Alaska. This method systematically and simultaneously analyzes geoscience data from multiple geospatially referenced datasets and uses individual subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic units) as the spatial unit of classification. The final map output uses a red, yellow, green, and gray color scheme to portray estimated relative potential (High, Medium, Low, Unknown) for each of the six groups of mineral deposit types, and it indicates the relative certainty (High, Medium, Low) of that estimate for each 12-digit hydrologic unit through color shading. Accompanying tables describe the data layers employed to score favorability for the presence of each mineral deposit group, the values assigned for specific analysis parameters, and the relative weighting of each data layer that contributes to estimated measures of potential and certainty . Core datasets used include the Alaska Geochemical Database, Version 2.0 (AGDB2); the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) web-based geochemical database; the digital “Geologic Map of Alaska;” the Alaska Resource Data File (ARDF); and aerial gamma-ray surveys flown as part of the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program by the U.S. Department of Energy. Maps accompanying this report illustrate the scores for estimated mineral resource potential for the six deposit groups for the state of Alaska. Areas that have known potential, as well as new areas that were not previously known to have potential, for the targeted minerals and deposit groups are identified and described. Numerous areas in Alaska, some of them large, have high potential for one or more of the selected groups of deposit types within Alaska. Contributors Matthew Granitto, Timothy S. Hayes, James V. Jones, III, Susan M. Karl, Keith A. Labay, Jeffrey L. Mauk, Jeanine M. Schmidt, Nora B. Shew, Erin Todd, Bronwen Wang, Melanie B. Werdon, and Douglas B. Yager

Alaska↗
USGS1998

Catalog of the historically active volcanoes of Alaska

Alaska hosts within its borders over 80 major volcanic centers that have erupted during Holocene time (< 10,000 years). At least 29 of these volcanic centers (table 1) had historical eruptions and 12 additional volcanic centers may have had historical eruptions. Historical in Alaska generally means the period since 1760 when explorers, travelers, and inhabitants kept written records. These 41 volcanic centers have been the source for >265 eruptions reported from Alaska volcanoes. With the exception of Wrangell volcano, all the centers are in, or near, the Aleutian volcanic arc, which extends 2500 km from Hayes volcano 145 km west of Anchorage in the Alaska-Aleutian Range to Buldir Island in the western Aleutian Islands (fig. 1). The volcanic arc, a subduction-related feature associated with underthrusting of the Pacific plate beneath the North American plate is divided between oceanic island arc and continental margin segments, the boundary occurring at about 165° W longitude (fig. 1). An additional 7 volcanic centers in the Aleutian arc (table 2; fig. 1 A) have active fumarole fields but no reported historical eruptions. This report discusses the location, physiography and structure, eruptive history, and geology of those volcanoes in Alaska that have experienced one or more eruptions that have been recorded in the written history (i.e., in historical time). It is part of the group of catalogs entitled Catalogue of Active Volcanoes of the World published beginning in 1951 under the auspices of the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI). A knowledge of the information contained in such catalogs aids in understanding the type and scale of activity that might be expected during a particular eruption, the hazards the eruption may pose, and even the prediction of eruptions. The catalog will thus be of value not only to the inhabitants of Alaska but to government agencies concerned with emergency response, air traffic operations, and weather, as well as to industry and scientists. The combination of the hazard posed by volcanic ash to jet aircraft and the heavy use of international air routes located parallel to, and on either side of, the Aleutian volcanic arc means that even remote volcanoes in Alaska now pose significant hazards to life and property. Although this report is concerned with historical eruptions from Alaskan volcanoes, other volcanoes in Alaska have erupted in the past 10,000 years and might therefore be expected to erupt again. Several Holocene volcanic centers in the Aleutian arc have no reported historical activity. Elsewhere in Alaska the Bering Sea basalt fields cover large areas of the Yukon Delta, Seward Peninsula, and several of the islands of the Bering Sea. Holocene centers also occur in the Wrangell Mountains and in isolated occurrences in the interior and southeastern Alaska. Eruptions from these centers have occurred within the past several hundred years but none were transcribed in the written record. Moodie and others (1992), however, report oral traditions among the Northern Athapaskan Indians of the southwestern Yukon Territory that may record the second and younger deposition of the White River Ash circa A.D. 720. This lobe of the White River Ash was deposited during the paroxysmal eruption of Churchill volcano in the Wrangell Mountains of eastcentral Alaska (McGimsey and others, 1992; Richter and others, 1995).

Alaska↗
USGS2018

Alaska snowpack response to climate change: Statewide snowfall equivalent and snowpack water scenarios

Climatically driven changes in snow characteristics (snowfall, snowpack, and snowmelt) will affect hydrologic and ecological systems in Alaska over the coming century, yet there exist no projections of downscaled future snow pack metrics for the state of Alaska. We updated historical and projected snow day fraction (PSF, the fraction of days with precipitation falling as snow) from McAfee et al. We developed modeled snowfall equivalent (SFE) derived from the product of snow-day fraction (PSF) and existing gridded precipitation for Alaska from Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP). We validated the assumption that modeled SFE approximates historical decadally averaged snow water equivalent (SWE) observations from snowcourse and Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites. We present analyses of future downscaled PSF and two new products, October–March SFE and ratio of snow fall equivalent to precipitation (SFE:P) based on bias-corrected statistically downscaled projections of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) Global Climate Model (GCM) temperature and precipitation for the state of Alaska. We analyzed mid-century (2040–2069) and late-century (2070–2099) changes in PSF, SFE, and SFE:P relative to historical (1970–1999) mean temperature and present results for Alaska climate divisions and 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC12) watersheds. Overall, estimated historical the SFE is reasonably well related to the observed SWE, with correlations over 0.75 in all decades, and correlations exceeding 0.9 in the 1960s and 1970s. In absolute terms, SFE is generally biased low compared to the observed SWE. PSF and SFE:P decrease universally across Alaska under both Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5 emissions scenarios, with the smallest changes for RCP 4.5 in 2040–2069 and the largest for RCP 8.5 in 2070–2099. The timing and magnitude of maximum decreases in PSF vary considerably with regional average temperature, with the largest changes in months at the beginning and end of the snow season. Mean SFE changes vary widely among climate divisions, ranging from decreases between −17 and −58% for late twenty-first century in southeast, southcentral, west coast and southwest Alaska to increases up to 21% on the North Slope. SFE increases most at highest elevations and latitudes and decreases most in coastal southern Alaska. SFE:P ratios indicate a broad switch from snow-dominated to transitional annual hydrology across most of southern Alaska by mid-century, and from transitional to rain-dominated watersheds in low elevation parts of southeast Alaska by the late twenty-first century.

Alaska↗
USGS2018

Alaska

Alaska is the largest state in the Nation, almost one-fifth the size of the combined lower 48 United States, and is rich in natural capital resources. Alaska is often identified as being on the front lines of climate change since it is warming faster than any other state and faces a myriad of issues associated with a changing climate. The cost of infrastructure damage from a warming climate is projected to be very large, potentially ranging from $110 to $270 million per year, assuming timely repair and maintenance. Although climate change does and will continue to dramatically transform the climate and environment of the Arctic, proactive adaptation in Alaska has the potential to reduce costs associated with these impacts. This includes the dissemination of several tools, such as guidebooks to support adaptation planning, some of which focus on Indigenous communities. While many opportunities exist with a changing climate, economic prospects are not well captured in the literature at this time. As the climate continues to warm, there is likely to be a nearly sea ice-free Arctic during the summer by mid-century. Ocean acidification is an emerging global problem that will intensify with continued carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and negatively affects organisms. Climate change will likely affect management actions and economic drivers, including fisheries, in complex ways. The use of multiple alternative models to appropriately characterize uncertainty in future fisheries biomass trajectories and harvests could help manage these challenges. As temperature and precipitation increase across the Alaska landscape, physical and biological changes are also occurring throughout Alaska’s terrestrial ecosystems. Degradation of permafrost is expected to continue, with associated impacts to infrastructure, river and stream discharge, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. Longer sea ice-free seasons, higher ground temperatures, and relative sea level rise are expected to exacerbate flooding and accelerate erosion in many regions, leading to the loss of terrestrial habitat in the future and in some cases requiring entire communities or portions of communities to relocate to safer terrain. The influence of climate change on human health in Alaska can be traced to three sources: direct exposures, indirect effects, and social or psychological disruption. Each of these will have different manifestations for Alaskans when compared to residents elsewhere in the United States. Climate change exerts indirect effects on human health in Alaska through changes to water, air, and soil and through ecosystem changes affecting disease ecology and food security, especially in rural communities. Alaska’s rural communities are predominantly inhabited by Indigenous peoples who may be disproportionately vulnerable to socioeconomic and environmental change; however, they also have rich cultural traditions of resilience and adaptation. The impacts of climate change will likely affect all aspects of Alaska Native societies, from nutrition, infrastructure, economics, and health consequences to language, education, and the communities themselves. The profound and diverse climate-driven changes in Alaska’s physical environment and ecosystems generate economic impacts through their effects on environmental services. These services include positive benefits directly from ecosystems (for example, food, water, and other resources), as well as services provided directly from the physical environment (for example, temperature moderation, stable ground for supporting infrastructure, and smooth surface for overland transportation). Some of these effects are relatively assured and in some cases are already occurring. Other impacts are highly uncertain, due to their dependence on the structure of global and regional economies and future human alterations to the environment decades into the future, but they could be large. In Alaska, a range of adaptations to changing climate and related environmental conditions are underway and others have been proposed as potential actions, including measures to reduce vulnerability and risk, as well as more systemic institutional transformation.

Report↗
USGS2016

A synthesis of Jurassic and Early Cretaceous crustal evolution along the southern margin of the Arctic Alaska–Chukotka microplate and implications for defining tectonic boundaries active during opening of Arctic Ocean basins

A synthesis of Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous collision-related metamorphic events in the Arctic Alaska–Chukotka microplate clarifies its likely movement history during opening of the Amerasian and Canada basins. Comprehensive tectonic reconstructions of basin opening have been problematic, in part, because of the large size of the microplate, uncertainties in the location and kinematics of structures bounding the microplate, and lack of information on its internal deformation history. Many reconstructions have treated Arctic Alaska and Chukotka as a single crustal entity largely on the basis of similarities in their Mesozoic structural trends and similar late Proterozoic and early Paleozoic histories. Others have located Chukotka near Siberia during the Triassic and Jurassic, on the basis of detrital zircon age populations, and suggested that it was Arctic Alaska alone that rotated. The Mesozoic metamorphic histories of Arctic Alaska and Chukotka can be used to test the validity of these two approaches. A synthesis of the distribution, character, and timing of metamorphic events reveals substantial differences in the histories of the southern margin of the microplate in Chukotka in comparison to Arctic Alaska and places specific limitations on tectonic reconstructions. During the Late Jurassic and earliest Cretaceous, the Arctic Alaska margin was subducted to the south, while the Chukotka margin was the upper plate of a north-dipping subduction zone or a zone of transpression. An early Aptian blueschist- and greenschist-facies belt records the most profound crustal thickening event in the evolution of the orogen. It may have resulted in thicknesses of 50–60 km and was likely the cause of flexural subsidence in the foredeep of the Brooks Range. This event involved northern Alaska and northeasternmost Chukotka; it did not involve central and western Chukotka. Arctic Alaska and Chukotka evolved separately until the Aptian thickening event, which was likely a result of the rotation of Arctic Alaska into central and western Chukotka. In northeastern Chukotka, the thickened rocks are separated from the relatively little thickened continental crust of the remainder of Chukotka by the oceanic rocks of the Kolyuchin-Mechigmen zone. The zone is a candidate for an Early Cretaceous suture that separated most of Chukotka from northeast Chukotka and Alaska. Albian patterns of magmatism, metamorphism, and deformation in Chukotka and the Seward Peninsula may represent an example of escape tectonics that developed in response to final amalgamation of Chukotka with Eurasia.

Arctic Alaska-Chukotka microplate↗
USGS2014

Reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples for geochemical data from the western part of the Wrangellia terrane, Anchorage, Gulkana, Healy, Mt. Hayes, Nabesna, and Talkeetna Mountains quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. For the geochemical part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 1,682 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering the western half of the Wrangellia Terrane in the Anchorage, Gulkana, Healy, Mt. Hayes, Nabesna, and Talkeetna Mountains quadrangles of south-central Alaska (fig. 1). USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the Denver warehouse through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Inmachuk, Kugruk, Kiwalik, and Koyuk River drainages, Granite Mountain, and the northern Darby Mountains, Bendeleben, Candle, Kotzebue, and Solomon quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 653 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from an area covering portions of the Inmachuk, Kugruk, Kiwalik, and Koyuk river drainages, Granite Mountain, and the northern Darby Mountains, located in the Bendeleben, Candle, Kotzebue, and Solomon quadrangles of eastern Seward Peninsula, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Kougarok area, Bendeleben and Teller quadrangles, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 302 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Kougarok River drainage as well as smaller adjacent drainages in the Bendeleben and Teller quadrangles, Seward Peninsula, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Tonsina area, Valdez Quadrangle, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 128 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Tonsina area in the Chugach Mountains, Valdez quadrangle, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Geochemical reanalysis of historical U.S. Geological Survey sediment samples from the Zane Hills, Hughes and Shungnak quadrangles, Alaska

The State of Alaska’s Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assessment project, a State-funded Capital Improvement Project (CIP), is designed to evaluate Alaska’s statewide potential for SCM resources. The SCM Assessment is being implemented by the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), and involves obtaining new airborne-geophysical, geological, and geochemical data. As part of the SCM Assessment, thousands of historical geochemical samples from DGGS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Bureau of Mines archives are being reanalyzed by DGGS using modern, quantitative, geochemical-analytical methods. The objective is to update the statewide geochemical database to more clearly identify areas in Alaska with SCM potential. The USGS is also undertaking SCM-related geologic studies in Alaska through the federally funded Alaska Critical Minerals cooperative project. DGGS and USGS share the goal of evaluating Alaska’s strategic and critical minerals potential and together created a Letter of Agreement (signed December 2012) and a supplementary Technical Assistance Agreement (#14CMTAA143458) to facilitate the two agencies’ cooperative work. Under these agreements, DGGS contracted the USGS in Denver to reanalyze historical USGS sediment samples from Alaska. For this report, DGGS funded reanalysis of 105 historical USGS sediment samples from the statewide Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2; Granitto and others, 2013). Samples were chosen from the Zane Hills area in the Hughes and Shungnak quadrangles, Alaska (fig. 1). The USGS was responsible for sample retrieval from the National Geochemical Sample Archive (NGSA) in Denver, Colorado through the final quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the geochemical analyses obtained through the USGS contract lab. The new geochemical data are published in this report as a coauthored DGGS report, and will be incorporated into the statewide geochemical databases of both agencies.

Alaska↗
USGS1995

Sea otters and kelp forests in Alaska: Generality and variation in a community ecological paradigm

Multiscale patterns of spatial and temporal variation in density and population structure were used to evaluate the generality of a three—trophic—level cascade among sea otters (Enhydra lutris), invertebrate herbivores, and macroalgae in Alaska. The paradigm holds that where sea otters occur herbivores are rare and plants are abundant, whereas when sea otters are absent herbivores are relatively common and plants are rare. Spatial patterns were based on 20 randomly placed quadrats at 153 randomly selected sites distributed among five locations with and four locations without sea otters. Both sea urchin and kelp abundance differed significantly among locations with vs. without sea otters in the Aleutian Islands and southeast Alaska. There was little (Aleutian Islands) or no (southeast Alaska) overlap between sites with and without sea otters, in plots of kelp density against urchin biomass. Despite intersite variation in the abundance of kelps and herbivores, these analyses demonstrate that sea otter predation has a predictable and broadly generalizable influence on the structure of Alaskan kelp forests. The percent cover of algal turf and suspension feeder assemblages also differed significantly (although less dramatically) between locations with and without sea otters. Temporal variation in community structure was assessed over periods of from 3 to 15 yr at sites in the Aleutian Islands and southeast Alaska where sea otters were 1) continuously present, 2) continuously absent, or 3) becoming reestablished because of natural range expansion. Kelp and sea urchin abundance remained largely unchanged at most sites where sea otters were continuously present or absent, the one exception being at Torch Bay (southeast Alaska), where kelp abundance varied significantly through time and urchin abundance varied significantly among sites because of episodic and patchy disturbances. In contrast, kelp and sea urchin abundances changed significantly, and in the expected directions, at sites that were being recolonized by sea otters. Sea urchin biomass declined by 50% in the Aleutian Islands and by nearly 100% in southeast Alaska following the spread of sea otters into previously unoccupied habitats. In response to these different rates and magnitudes of urchin reduction by sea otter predation, increases in kelp abundance were abrupt and highly significant in southeast Alaska but much smaller and slower over similar time periods in the Aleutian Islands. The different kelp colonization rates between southeast Alaska and the Aleutian Islands appear to be caused by large—scale differences in echinoid recruitment coupled with size—selective predation by sea otters for larger urchins. The length of urchin jaws (correlated with test diameter, r 2 = 0.968) in sea otter scats indicates that sea urchins <15—20 mm test diameter are rarely eaten by foraging sea otters. Sea urchin populations in the Aleutian Islands included high densities of small individuals (<20 mm test diameter) at all sites and during all years sampled, whereas in southeast Alaska similarly sized urchins were absent from most populations during most years. Small (<30—35 mm test diameter) tetracycline—marked urchins in the Aleutian Islands grew at a maximum rate of °10 mm/yr; thus the population must have significant recruitment annually, or at least every several years. In contrast, echinoid recruitment in southeast Alaska was more episodic, with many years to perhaps decades separating significant events. Our findings help explain regional differences in recovery rates of kelp forests following recolonization by sea otters.

Alaska↗
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↗