U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic.

U.S. Geological Survey researchers are among an international group of scientists setting sail Aug. 25 on a voyage to explore the Arctic. This will be a five-week expedition aboard U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy.

The primary purpose of this mission is to map the Arctic seafloor and collect data to help define the outer limits of the U.S. continental shelf. There will be other projects taking place simultaneously on Healy, and this includes collecting water and ice samples to study ocean acidification in the Arctic.

Arctic Ocean Acidification

Ocean acidification occurs when carbon dioxide (CO₂) increases in the atmosphere and is absorbed by the ocean. Acidification will continue to rise because CO₂ levels are projected to increase. Acidification can disturb the balance of marine life in the world’s oceans, and consequently affect people and animals that rely on those food resources.

The Arctic Ocean is one of the most vulnerable areas for acidification, yet it is one of the least explored oceans in the world. The USGS is leading a project to study ocean acidification in the Arctic and what this means for the survival of marine and terrestrial organisms. This is the third consecutive year of research.

For more information, read a press release on this research. Those interested can also track this year’s expedition.

Mapping the Seafloor

The primary mission taking place on Healy is a collaborative effort to map the seafloor and help define the outer limits of the U.S. continental shelf in the Arctic.

Each coastal nation may exercise sovereign rights over its continental shelf’s natural resources. These rights include control over minerals, petroleum and sedentary organisms such as clams, crabs and coral.

International law affords every coastal nation rights in its continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles from shore. If certain physical criteria are met, a nation is entitled to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, an area referred to as the “extended continental shelf” or ECS.

The United States is now collecting data to see if it meets those criteria to establish the limits for an ECS off the Alaska coast in the Arctic Ocean.

In addition to the Arctic, the United States is working to define its ECS off many of its other shores, including off the Atlantic coast and Northern Mariana Islands, and in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Mexico. View a map online.

This is the ninth ECS-related mission aboard Healy, and will likely be the last mission addressing U.S. ECS extent in the Arctic, provided the weather and equipment cooperate in the often uncertain and challenging Arctic environment.

Water samples using a CTD rosette were taken down to 4,600m in the Canada Basin to investigate ocean acidification.

Marrying Science and Law

Establishing the ECS is a scientific inquiry joined to legal questions in that it involves both geology and international law. Therefore, it requires a collaborative effort among many agencies.

The current mission is in support of the U.S Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is an interagency body chaired by the Department of State. Additional agencies participating in the Task Force are the Department of the Interior; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; USGS; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Department of Commerce; National Science Foundation; Joint Chiefs of Staff; U.S. Navy; U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Executive Office of the President; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; and the Arctic Research Commission.

The chief scientists for this summer’s Arctic cruise are Larry Mayer, Ph.D., and Capt. Andy Armstrong.  Both are from the Joint Hydrographic Center, a collaborative program between NOAA and the University of New Hampshire. The mission is funded by NOAA with a grant to the University of New Hampshire.

USGS Science

The USGS is a principal collaborator in these ECS missions. In the past, the USGS has served in various roles, from providing the chief scientist to assisting with data collection and analysis as well as coring for mud samples from the seafloor. The USGS is also helping to dredge rocks from the seafloor, and is storing and analyzing the samples.

Dredging for Clues: How did the Arctic Basin Form?

Scientists sort through rocks that were dredged from the Arctic Ocean floor on Sept. 9, 2009, aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy.

If time permits during the 2012 mission, rock samples will also be dredged and collected from the Arctic seafloor. The rocks will be dated to give scientists an idea of when they formed, and will ultimately give clues as to how the entire Arctic Basin may have developed. These samples have many other potential uses for science, including analyzing the rocks to see what minerals are present.

The USGS has been designated as responsible for the care and distribution of geologic samples collected on the voyage. At sea, the USGS will assist with the dredging operations, document and photograph all materials collected, and prepare them for transport to the USGS ECS samples repository. Back at the repository, the USGS provides proper care and storage of the samples, and facilitates sample requests for interested researchers.

Dredging operations in 2012 are being led by the Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping at the University of New Hampshire. Dredging has been conducted during past cruises, and more information can be found at the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center’s website.

Collaborating with Canada

Over the past four years in the Arctic, the United States and Canada have collaborated on joint ECS missions using Healy and the Canadian icebreaker, Louis S. St-Laurent. These joint missions were highly successful; they concluded in 2011 after having collected all the necessary seismic data for both countries.

Video on Past Expeditions

Watch a video produced in 2010 regarding past ECS expeditions by the United States and Canada.

Sunset over sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Elwha River in Olympic National Park in Northwest Washington. Courtesy: John McMillan, NOAA

A new analysis of streams in the western United States has found that despite a general increase in air temperatures over the past several decades, western streams are not necessarily warming at the same rate. Several factors may influence the discrepancy, including snowmelt, interaction with groundwater, water flow and discharge rates, solar radiation, wind, and humidity. But even after factoring out those elements, the scientists detected cooler-than-expected maximum, mean, and minimum stream temperatures. Looking at streams individually, they found that some seemed to be getting warmer, some cooler, and others showed little change at all.

Results of the research, which was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, and Oregon State University, are published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Cold, clean water is one of the most important ecosystem services in the western United States. Many species of economically and culturally important salmon, trout, and other species depend on these cold waters to thrive and survive, so naturally, the potential loss of cold water in the face of climate change is a concern.

These findings show that changes in stream temperatures will not simply parallel changes in warming air temperatures, as commonly assumed or

Cutthroat trout in the Middle Fork Salmon River, Idaho. Courtesy: Steve Jacobs

projected. They point to the likely importance of local factors, such as land form, land cover, and geology, in influencing climate sensitivity of stream temperatures. A second key finding is that the vast majority of streamgages in the region either lack long-term data or are too strongly influenced by local human activities to provide a clear evaluation of climate effects.

For this study, researchers used long-term records from USGS and U.S. Forest Service gaging stations. Of the more than 600 stations evaluated from California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska, less than 20 were suitable for analyzing climate effects. This set included streams with minimal human influences and sufficiently long-term records of temperatures for an evaluation of trends.

Rogue River Canyon in southwestern Oregon. Courtesy, Ruth Jacobs, USGS

These results highlight the fact that stream temperature is one of the most important, yet least understood aspects of climate change. The researchers caution that the findings do not mean that climate change will not affect stream temperature, which is a fundamental driver of ecosystem processes in streams. However, the relationship between air temperatures and stream temperatures may be more complex than previously realized and require additional monitoring.

The paper, The paradox of cooling streams in a warming world: regional climate trends do not parallel variable local trends in stream temperature in the Pacific continental United States, was authored by Ivan Arismendi, Oregon State University; Sherri Johnson, U.S. Forest Service; Jason Dunham, USGS; Roy Haggerty, Oregon State University; and David Hockman-Wert, USGS.

Additional Links:

Reconstructing Thermal Regimes in Streams from Sclerochronology of Freshwater Mussels (link to a paper, a USGS podcast, and an Oregon Field Guide television episode about the research)

http://fresc.usgs.gov/research/StudyDetail.asp?Study_ID=558

Climate Impact on Streamflows, Thermal Regimes, and the Changing Distribution of Trout in the Great Basin

http://fresc.usgs.gov/research/StudyDetail.asp?Study_ID=734

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Aquatic Ecology Laboratory

http://fresc.usgs.gov/AquaticEcologyLaboratory/

USGS scientists Doug Halm, Paul Schuster, and Kathy Kelsey collecting melt water samples from Gulkana Glacier. Results of recent analyses identified old carbonin the Yukon River, but also indicated that the chemical source was not derived from ancient plant material stored in the glacier, but from fossil fuel sources derived from atmospheric deposition. This add new complications to the interpretation of carbon sources and sinks in high latitudes and of the apparent sources of old organic carbon exported by arctic rivers.

A new study concludes that fossil fuel emissions are likely contributors to a substantial amount of organic carbon found on glaciers in Alaska.

Fossil fuel emissions, which contain organic carbon, can speed up the rate of glacier melt when deposited on glacier surfaces. In addition, the organic molecules associated with these deposits can be transported in rivers and streams, affecting downstream aquatic ecosystems. Knowledge of the source and age of organic carbon in glaciers allows for a better understanding of these and other impacts.

Prior research suggested that the main sources of organic carbon in Alaska’s glaciers were from forests and peatlands overrun by glaciers as far back as ten thousand years ago. While old soil and plant material are still possible sources of glacial organic carbon, new research indicates that human-created, or anthropogenic, sources are also important.

“We knew the organic carbon present in Alaska’s glaciers was old, but identifying the sources of this material has been difficult due to the lack of chemical data,” said USGS scientist George Aiken.

While extensive burning of fossil fuels is, geologically speaking, a relatively modern practice, the fuels themselves and the resulting carbon emissions are ancient. This is because the fuels are formed from plants and microorganisms that lived millions of years ago.

“Now we know that a substantial amount of ancient organic matter associated with these and other glaciers is of anthropogenic origin,” continued Aiken.

Why Study Carbon Levels?

When organic matter and other materials from the atmosphere are deposited on the surface of a glacier, less sunlight can be reflected and, therefore, more radiation and heat are absorbed. Having these materials on snow and ice surfaces causes them to melt faster.

Another concern is impacts to ecosystems and species habitats. As an example, organic matter exported to coastal areas is a potential nutrient or food source for aquatic bacteria, phytoplankton, and small grazing zooplankton. Climate warming or other factors may change the amount and quality of organic carbon available to these organisms. These aquatic organisms are also the base of the food web for all aquatic communities.

“When trying to understand climate change and decipher the carbon cycle puzzle, we need to make sure that we are using all of the right pieces,” said USGS scientist Rob Striegl. “As part of that puzzle, we are studying the source and amount of carbon flowing into the Arctic Ocean. An understanding of the complete picture allows for the most informed decisions to protect our environment.”

Melt water stream discharging from Gulkana Glacier, Alaska. USGS research of the Yukon River has had a long term goal of determining the source and fate of organic carbon transported by the river to the Bering Sea and ultimately the Arctic Ocean.

“The Arctic is of special interest because what happens there, such as extensive glacier melt, has impacts on the rest of the world,” continued Striegl. “Glacier environments, especially those in the high latitudes of the Arctic, are also among the most sensitive to climate warming.”

New Twist to Understanding Carbon in Glaciers

“Our new paper describes, for the first time, the detailed chemical composition of dissolved organic matter associated with glaciers and glacial meltwater in coastal Alaska and in Wyoming,” said Aiken.

“This study adds a twist to previous understandings, showing there is another source of organic carbon out there that needs to be considered,” said Striegl.

This study, published in the journal Nature Geosciences, was a collaborative effort of many institutions led primarily by the University of Alaska Southeast, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Woods Hole Research Center, and the USGS.

The Role of USGS Science

Earlier studies by the USGS, in collaboration with university researchers, found the presence of ancient organic carbon in the Yukon River and traced it back to meltwater from glaciers. For further analyses, USGS scientists continued those collaborations to sample meltwater from Mendenhall Glacier and Herbert Glacier in southeastern Alaska. The samples were then analyzed at USGS and university laboratories to develop the conclusions outlined in this new study.

“This truly is a collaborative effort, taking the expertise of many scientists to put the story together on the source of the carbon,” said Striegl. “The original work of the USGS in the Yukon basin helped form the questions and lab results contributed to answering the questions; but it took specialized instrumentation and scientific expertise from several other organizations to determine the final answer.”

Additional samples used for age dating and for other chemical characterization of the organic carbon of glaciers from other locations came from Gulkana Glacier in Alaska and from Fremont Glacier in Wyoming.

USGS scientists Doug Halm, Paul Schuster, Peter Murdoch, and Kathy Kelsey collecting melt water samples from Gulkana Glacier.

The Big Picture of Aquatic Carbon

The USGS has a long term goal of determining the source and fate of organic and inorganic carbon transported to coastal areas and oceans across the entire Nation. USGS research on the Yukon and other Arctic rivers is particularly focused on climate warming effects on mobilizing ancient carbon from permafrost to coastal regions and the Arctic Ocean. The USGS participates in the Arctic Great Rivers Observatory project, which is an international effort to study the six largest rivers, including the Yukon, which flow into the Arctic Ocean.

Learn more about USGS Yukon River Basin studies.

Contact: Jessica Robertson

North front of Brooks Range along southern margin of central North Slope assessment area.

For the first time, the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the potential of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in source rocks—in this case shale—of the Alaska North Slope.   The estimates range from 0 up to 2 billion barrels of oil and from 0 up to 80 trillion cubic feet of gas.

Unexplored Frontier

There historically has been significant oil and gas production from Alaska’s North Slope, but industry efforts have concentrated on conventional resources rather than continuous resources. As a result, production has never been attempted from shale formations of the Alaska North Slope, making them an unexplored frontier for shale-oil and shale-gas resources. The recent success of shale oil and shale gas development in the lower-48 states demonstrates the technical viability of such resources. Therefore, this new USGS assessment provides an estimate of potential resources that may be technically viable in this frontier region.

Although oil and gas have been produced in the North Slope for decades, these newly assessed shales represent an unexplored frontier for shale oil and shale gas development

Range of Uncertainty

A large range of uncertainty exists in the estimates of this report, mostly because there have been no attempts to produce the oil and gas. In the absence of drilling, it is difficult to be precise in assessing oil and gas resources, because drilling is the only way to determine if production from the shales is possible.

The shale formations assessed have generated oil and gas that migrated into conventional accumulations, including the super-giant Prudhoe Bay field.  It is also probable that these shale source rocks likely retain oil and gas that did not migrate, but only drilling can concretely confirm this or not.

Source Rocks

Source rocks are those formations from which hydrocarbons, such as oil and gas, originate. Conventional oil and gas resources gradually migrate away from the source rock into other formations, whereas continuous resources, such as shale oil and shale gas, remain trapped within the original source rock.

Three source rocks of the Alaska North Slope were assessed in this study – the Triassic Shublik Formation, the lower part of the Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous Kingak Shale, and the combined Cretaceous pebble shale unit and Hue Shale.  They extend across much of the North Slope.

Badami pipeline, somewhere between Deadhorse and Badami in the Alaska North Slope.

Shale Oil Versus Oil Shale

Shale oil is oil that was generated naturally in source rocks but never migrated out of them. It should not be confused with “oil shale,” a source rock in which oil has not yet been generated, but that is capable of generating oil if artificially heated.

Contact: Alex Demas

Mountains towering above the mouth of the Copper River from the coastal Gulf of Alaska.

As warming temperatures cause glaciers to melt, the flow of freshwater in the Gulf of Alaska changes and impacts are felt across coastal ecosystems. Increased water flow can flush higher levels of iron and nitrate into coastal waters, and these compounds can radically alter the production of phytoplankton and zooplankton (tiny, free floating organisms), which serve as food for seabirds and fish such as salmon. Glacier runoff is of particular concern in the Copper River, which is the Gulf’s largest freshwater source and a major salmon production area.

How will accelerated glacial melting over the next 50 years as a result of climate change affect the unique Gulf of Alaska and Copper River coastal ecosystems? USGS scientists are studying these processes and impacts.

Planktic Foraminifera collected from a sediment-trap moored in the northern Gulf of Mexico, magnified 255x.

An extensive field campaign in 2010 included three oceanographic cruises studying the Copper River plume and adjacent regions off of the coast, six monthly river-sampling trips, and stream flow monitoring of several rivers. Modeling of these systems is also underway, including a predictive ecosystem model of the Gulf of Alaska. In addition, a glacier component is being added to an existing and widely-used water model. Model results will be an important resource for resource managers, as will mapping of current glacial areas using high resolution satellite imagery. These results will help scientists and resource managers assess the potential impacts that future changes in glaciers may have on the environment.

You can learn more about this USGS research at : http://nccwsc.usgs.gov/documents/projectsummary/Summary_for_NCCWSC-Crusius.pdf

Contact: John Crusius                                    (206) 543-6978