DOCSLIB.ORG

SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL and MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL and MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 NISTIR 7562 SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 Stacy S. Vander Pol1 Paul R. Becker1 Rusty D. Day1 Michael B. Ellisor1 Aurore Guichard1 Amanda J. Moors1 David Point1 Rebecca S. Pugh1 David G. Roseneau2 1U.S. Department of Commerce 2U.S. Department of the Interior National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Analytical Chemsitry Division Homer, AK 99603 Hollings Marine Laboratory Charleston, SC 29412 NISTIR 7562 SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 Stacy S. Vander Pol1 Paul R. Becker1 Rusty D. Day1 Michael B. Ellisor1 Aurore Guichard1 Amanda J. Moors1 David Point1 Rebecca S. Pugh1 David G. Roseneau2 1U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Hollings Marine Laboratory Charleston, SC 29412 2U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Homer, AK 99603 February 2009 Erratum: Glaucous gull eggs were not collected from the Penny River delta, but rather at a colony approximately 24 km to the west-northwest in the Sinuk River delta. This correction does not affect the findings of the report. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii Disclaimer ..................................................................................................................................... vii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... viii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Study Area and Sampling Sites ................................................................................................... 5 Collecting Protocols and Egg Collecting Kits ............................................................................ 9 Sample Processing and Banking ............................................................................................... 10 Analysis for Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) ................................................................... 10 Analysis for Mercury (total, inorganic, and organic mercury) ................................................. 13 Analysis for Organotin Compounds ......................................................................................... 14 Statistical Methods .................................................................................................................... 14 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)........................................................................................ 15 Mercury (including organomercury) ......................................................................................... 29 Organotin Compounds .............................................................................................................. 32 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 35 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)........................................................................................ 35 Mercury (including organomercury) ......................................................................................... 41 Organotin Compounds .............................................................................................................. 46 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 47 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 48 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 50 ii List of Tables Table 1. The 1999-2005 Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) seabird egg collection sites ................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2. Egg clutches banked by the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) 8 Table 3. Mass fractions of POPs in glaucous gull and glaucous-winged gull eggs ...................... 27 Table 4. Mass fractions of MBT, DBT, TBT and ∑BT in common and thick-billed murre eggs and glaucous and glaucous-winged gull eggs collected in the Bering and Chukchi seas and Gulf of Alaska during 1999-2005, and brown pelican eggs obtained in the Charleston, South Carolina vicinity in 2005 ............................................................................................................................. 33 Table 5. Mass fractions of selected organic contaminants in Alaskan common murre eggs compared to values reported from Stora Karlsö in the Baltic Sea ................................................ 39 Table 6. Mass fractions of total mercury in common and thick-bill murre eggs from Alaska, California, Norway, and Russia. ................................................................................................... 42 List of Figures Figure 1. The 1999-2005 Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) seabird egg collection sites ................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2. Murre and gull sampling sites compared during this study. ............................................ 9 Figure 3. Percent lipid in common murre eggs collected at 10 Alaskan colonies ........................ 16 Figure 4. Mass fractions of POPs in Gulf of Alaska common murre eggs collected in 2003 and 2004............................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5. Mass fractions of POPs in Bering Sea common murre eggs collected in 2005 ............ 18 Figure 6. Mass fractions of POPs in thick-billed murre eggs collected in 2002 .......................... 19 Figure 7. Mass fractions of POPs in common murre eggs collected over several years at St. Lazaria, East Amatuli, and Bogoslof islands ................................................................................ 21 Figure 8. Principal components analysis for common murre eggs. .............................................. 22 Figure 9. Mass fractions of POPs in the Bogoslof Island common murre eggs collected in 2005 with and without outlier Egg ID 863 ............................................................................................ 23 Figure 10. Principal components analysis for thick-billed and common murre eggs ................... 24 Figure 11. Mass fractions of POPs in glaucous gull and glaucous-winged gull eggs collected in 2005............................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 12. Principal components analysis for glaucous gull and glaucous-winged gull eggs ...... 28 Figure 13. Percentages of methylmercury contributing to total mercury in murre and gull eggs 29 Figure 14. Mass fractions of mercury in individual murre and gull eggs ..................................... 30 Figure 15. Mass fractions of mercury in murre and gull eggs by species and geographic location. ....................................................................................................................................................... 31 iii Figure 16. Mass fractions of mercury in common murre eggs collected in 2005 from coastal mainland colonies in Norton Sound compared with other mainland and coastal colonies in the Bering and Chukchi seas ............................................................................................................... 31 Figure 17. Mass fractions of MBT, DBT, TBT and ∑BT in murre and gull eggs from colonies in the Bering and Chukchi seas and Gulf of Alaska ......................................................................... 34 Figure 18. BuSn mass fractions in Gulf of Alaska common and thick-billed murre eggs ........... 34 Figure 19. Mass fractions of POPs in common murre eggs collected at Alaskan colonies during 2003-2005 and the 1970s .............................................................................................................. 38 Figure 20. Mass fractions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conditional Probabilities for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area
    OCS Report BOEM 2020-003 Oil Spill Risk Analysis: Conditional Probabilities for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Headquarters This page intentionally left blank. OCS Report BOEM 2020-003 Oil Spill Risk Analysis: Conditional Probabilities for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area January 2020 Authors: Zhen Li Caryn Smith In-House Document by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Division of Environmental Sciences Sterling, VA US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Headquarters This page intentionally left blank. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Oil Spill Risk Analysis web page (https://www.boem.gov/environment/environmental- assessment/oil-spill-risk-analysis-reports). CITATION Li Z, Smith C. 2020. Oil Spill Risk Analysis: Conditional Probabilities for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Sterling (VA): U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Report BOEM 2020-003. 130 p. ABOUT THE COVER This graphic depicts the study area in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and boundary segments used in the oil spill risk analysis model for the the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pamphlet to Accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3131
    Bedrock Geologic Map of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, and Accompanying Conodont Data By Alison B. Till, Julie A. Dumoulin, Melanie B. Werdon, and Heather A. Bleick Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3131 View of Salmon Lake and the eastern Kigluaik Mountains, central Seward Peninsula 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1 Sources of data ....................................................................................................................................1 Components of the map and accompanying materials .................................................................1 Geologic Summary ........................................................................................................................................1 Major geologic components ..............................................................................................................1 York terrane ..................................................................................................................................2 Grantley Harbor Fault Zone and contact between the York terrane and the Nome Complex ..........................................................................................................................3 Nome Complex ............................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska
    Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska December 2019 This page left blank intentionally. Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Nome, Alaska Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District December 2019 This page left blank intentionally. Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This General Investigations study is being conducted under authority granted by Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, which authorizes a study of the feasibility for development of navigation improvements in various harbors and rivers in Alaska. This study is also utilizing the authority of Section 2006 of WRDA, 2007, Remote and Subsistence Harbors, as modified by Section 2104 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) and further modified by Section 1105 of WRDA 2016. Section 2006 states that the Secretary may recommend a project without demonstrating that the improvements are justified solely by National Economic Development (NED) benefits, if the Secretary determines that the improvements meet specific criteria detailed in the authority. Additionally, Section 1202(c)(3) of WRDA 2016 “Additional Studies, Arctic Deep Draft Port Development Partnerships” allows for the consideration of transportation cost savings benefits to national security. The proposed port modifications intend to improve navigation efficiency to reduce the costs of commodities critical to the viability of communities in the region. This study has been cost-shared, with 50 % of the study funding provided by the non-Federal sponsor, which is the City of Nome, per the Federal Cost Share Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum Moonlight Wells Protection Area
    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM MOONLIGHT WELLS PROTECTION AREA NOME, ALASKA BEESC Project No. 25071 June 2005 Prepared for: City of Nome Nome Joint Utility System P.O. Box 281 P.O. Box 70 Nome, Alaska 99762 Nome, Alaska 99762 2000 W. International Airport Road, #C‐1 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Phone (907) 563‐0013 Fax (907) 563‐6713 Final Technical Memorandum Moonlight Wells Protection Area BEESC Project No. 25071 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................... i TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM.................................................................................................1 REFERENCE................................................................................................................................4 TABLE Table 1 Moonlight Wells Information ...................................................................................2 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Proposed Moonlight Wells Protection Area Figure 3 B-B’ Crosssection Figure 4 A-A’ Crosssection Figure 5 Moonlight Wells Protection Area and Land Status APPENDICES Appendix A Geology and Geophysics of the Moonlight Wells Area Appendix B Well Logs ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BEESC Bristol Environmental & Engineering Services Corporation bgs below ground surface June 2005 i Revision 3 Final Technical Memorandum Moonlight Wells Protection Area BEESC Project No. 25071 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM The City of Nome obtains drinking water from a groundwater source located at Moonlight Springs. Moonlight Springs is located approximately 3 miles north of the Nome airport (see Figure 1). The City of Nome currently obtains water from three wells located in a fractured marble formation. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to define the protection area of the marble aquifer associated with the three drinking water wells and to identify potential activities that could impact the aquifer within the protection area. Prior to 2001, Nome obtained drinking water from a collection gallery located at Moonlight Springs.
    [Show full text]
  • Controls on Fishing Behavior on the Nome River
    CONTROLS ON FISHING BEHAVIOR ON THE NOME RIVER Jim Magdanz and Annie Olanna Technical Paper No. 102 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Nome, Alaska February 1984 ABSTRACT Very few chum salmon were observed escaping upriver to spawn in the Nome River in 1982 and 1983. Attempts to close a portion of the river to net fishing met strong opposition in 1980. The problem is how to effectively manage fishing without causing unnecessary hardship or disruption. The objectives of this study were (1) to describe the history of the Nome River fishery from earliest records (about 1880) through the present and (2) to -identify factors that control fishing behavior among Nome River fishers today. Special attention is given to ..= controls other than Fish and Game regulations; these controls were labeled "internal" controls. Before the gold rush to Nome in 1899, the Nome River was the site of a small, perhaps seasonal, settlement of Inupiat Eskimo. During the gold rush, the Inupiat were displaced by gold miners and the U.S. Army, (who built a fort at the river mouth). After the army closed Fort Davis in 1921 and mining slowed in the thirties, fishing and other subsistence activities again became the primary use of the river. During World War II, mining virtually ceased. Inupiat immigrants to Nome -- principally from the western Seward Peninsula -- established a camp at the mouth of the river on the site of old Fort Davis. Following statehood in 1959, commercial salmon fisheries began to develop in the area. The Nome subdistrict commercial salmon fishery, however, was quite small until 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsistence Land Use in Nome, a Northwest Alaska Regional Center
    JamesMagdanzardAnnieOlanna Technical Pam No. 148 Tics researchwas partM~y,suppo~ byANILafed@ralaidfurds~~ the U.S. Fish arxi Wildlife Service Anchorage, Alaska Division of subsistence AlaskaDepartmerrtofFishandGame Juneau, Alaska 1986 This study documented areas used for hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rescxllces by a sample of 46 households inNome, Alaska. The study purposes were: (1) to document the extent of areas used by None residents, and (2)to compare areas usedby membersofd.ifferentName~ties. Nome, with 3,876 residents in 1985, was the largest oommuni*innorthweest+skaandwastentimesaslaKgeasany conununiw which had existed in the local area before 1850. Nly 25 percent of the 15,000 people in Northwest Alaska lived in Nome. Nome was a regional oenter for~government, transportation, ardretailtrade. Namewasapolyglatcammunitywitha59percent Eskimo majority (many of whom had moved to Nome from smaller communities in the region). Minorities (some ofwhomhadlived in Nome all their lives) included whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics. Previous studies have shown that nearly allhouse- holds inNomeharvestedatleastsomewildrescxlrces. Thisstudyf~thatNomekharvestareasweretwotothree timesaslargeashawest areas forothersmallercommunities in theregia Roads facilitatedharvestirg, especiallyofmooseand plank Thesampledhauseholdsharvestedthroqh&thesouthern Seward Peninsula from Wales to cape Darby, throughout Norton Sound, and in the Bering Strait. A majority of the households With~orspcrusesborninother~~w~Alaskacommunities alsor&urnedtothosecommunitiestoharvestwildresaurces.
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Late
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Late Cenozoic radiometric dates, Seward and Baldwin Peninsulas, and adjacent continental shelf, Alaska by Dan-ell S. Kaufman ' and David M. Hopkins 2 Open-File Report 85-374 This map is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. ' Menlo Park, California * University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Fairbanks, Alaska 1985 CONTENTS Page Introduction .............................................................1 References ............................................................24 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. -- Histogram showing frequency distribution of radiometric dates............................................3 Plate 1. Map of Seward and Baldwin Peninsulas and adjacent continental shelf showing locations of sites dated by radiometric analysis.........................28 TABLE Table 1. Radiometric dates............................................4 Late Cenozoic radiometric dates, Seward and Baldwin Peninsulas, and adjacent continental shelf, Alaska by Darrell S. Kaufman and David M. Hopkins INTRODUCTION The Seward and Baldwin Peninsulas and adjacent continental shelf form the heart of Beringia, the vast arctic landmass that was exposed during Pleis­ tocene glacial epochs (Hulten, 1937), and is an area of wide interdisciplinary interest. Quaternary deposits there preserve an especially rich record of the paleogeographic evolution of Beringia. Stratigraphic and geomorphic relation­ ships between glacial drift and
    [Show full text]
  • SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL and MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005
    NISTIR 7562 SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 Stacy S. Vander Pol1 Paul R. Becker1 Rusty D. Day1 Michael B. Ellisor1 Aurore Guichard1 Amanda J. Moors1 David Point1 Rebecca S. Pugh1 David G. Roseneau2 1U.S. Department of Commerce 2U.S. Department of the Interior National Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Analytical Chemsitry Division Homer, AK 99603 Hollings Marine Laboratory Charleston, SC 29412 NISTIR 7562 SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 2002-2005 Stacy S. Vander Pol1 Paul R. Becker1 Rusty D. Day1 Michael B. Ellisor1 Aurore Guichard1 Amanda J. Moors1 David Point1 Rebecca S. Pugh1 David G. Roseneau2 1U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Hollings Marine Laboratory Charleston, SC 29412 2U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Homer, AK 99603 February 2009 Erratum: Glaucous gull eggs were not collected from the Penny River delta, but rather at a colony approximately 24 km to the west-northwest in the Sinuk River delta. This correction does not affect the findings of the report. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Arctic Subarea Contingency Plan
    NORTHWEST ARCTIC SUBAREA CONTINGENCY PLAN SENSITIVE AREAS SECTION SENSITIVE AREAS: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART ONE – INFORMATION SOURCES ............................................................................ 7 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART TWO – AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN .................................................. 11 A. BACKGROUND/CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 11 B. AREAS OF MAJOR CONCERN .......................................................................................................... 11 C. AREAS OF MODERATE CONCERN ................................................................................................... 13 D. AREAS OF LESSER CONCERN .......................................................................................................... 13 E. AREAS OF LOCAL CONCERN ........................................................................................................... 13 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART THREE – RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ......................................................................... 24 SENSITIVE AREAS: PART FOUR – BIOLOGICAL AND HUMAN USE RESOURCES ........................................... 34 A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 34 B. HABITAT TYPES ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY SERIES in SUPPORT of COASTAL COMMUNITY HAZARD PLANNING—NORTHWEST ALASKA DEERING, ALASKA !( Deering
    Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 147C ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY SERIES IN SUPPORT OF COASTAL COMMUNITY HAZARD PLANNING—NORTHWEST ALASKA DEERING, ALASKA !( Deering Prepared by Jacquelyn Smith and Nicole Kinsman November 2011 Juneau [ This annotated bibliography is part of a series created to facilitate access to documents useful for coastal geohazard evaluation and community planning in Northwest Alaska. Below is a comprehensive list of community-specific information sources, each with full bibliographic information and an informative-style annotation that highlights content pertaining to the community of Deering, Alaska. For a detailed description of the preparation and scope of this resource, please refer to this bibliography series’ foreword. Any notable errors and/or omissions may be reported to the Coastal Hazards Program manager at the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), accessed 2011, Division of Community & Regional Affairs (DCRA) Community Profiles [website]: State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development. http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/profiles/profile-maps.htm This website provides access to community profile maps for community-based planning. The maps are available in 24" by 36" and 30" by 42" formats. The Deering maps were created in 1997 based on land surveys and/or interpretation of aerial imagery. Subsistence hunting grounds, habitat areas, community buildings and public facilities are delineated. Shoreline position and potential erosion zones are included in the map content. All maps have been sponsored by the Alaska Division of Community & Regional Affairs and contracted to local agencies for production. Elswick, Virginia L., 2003, Seismic interpretation and structural evaluation of the Hope Basin, Alaska [MS Thesis]: Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University Department of Geology and Geography, 21 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Alaska: Nome & Gambell
    GRAND ALASKA: NOME & GAMBELL MAY 29–JUNE 8, 2021 Bluethroat (male), Teller Road, Nome, AK (© Kevin J. Zimmer) LEADER: KEVIN ZIMMER LIST COMPILED BY: KEVIN ZIMMER VICTOR EMANUEL NATURE TOURS, INC. 2525 WALLINGWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 1003 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746 WWW.VENTBIRD.COM GRAND ALASKA: NOME & GAMBELL MAY 29–JUNE 8, 2021 By Kevin Zimmer Long-tailed Jaeger, Gambell, AK (© Kevin J. Zimmer) Following a most enjoyable Kenai Peninsula & Anchorage Pre-Trip that netted a wealth of boreal forest breeders, nesting seabirds, and special mammals, we convened our full group in Anchorage, and then headed north to Nome the next morning to kick off the Nome & Gambell tour. There is probably no North American tour that I more eagerly look forward to than this one, even after more than 30 years of doing this combo (Nome + Gambell) in one incarnation or another. The promise of numerous iconic Alaskan tundra-breeding specialties, combined with the very real potential for multiple Asiatic vagrants—not to mention some glamour mammals—and spectacular scenery and tundra wildflowers, all make for an exciting birding adventure with more than a bit of a wilderness feel to it. www.ventbird.com 2 Grand Alaska: Nome & Gambell, 2021 The stretch of the Council Road that skirts the coastline of Norton Sound from the Nome River mouth, around Cape Nome, and on to Solomon is always the most dynamic place for birding in the Nome region, and seldom fails to deliver something good or unexpected. Our first afternoon drive provided the expected introduction to many of Nome’s tundra breeders, as well as to many of the regular spring migrants.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Resource Data File on Mines, Prospects and Mineral Occurrences Throughout Alaska
    Nome quadrangle Descriptions of the mineral occurrences shown on the accompanying figure follow. See U.S. Geological Survey (1996) for a description of the information content of each field in the records. The data presented here are maintained as part of a statewide database on mines, prospects and mineral occurrences throughout Alaska. o o o o D-1 D-4 D-3 D-2 C-1 C-3 C-2 B-1 Refer to the 1:63,360-scale maps in the following pages for locations. o o o o Distribution of mineral occurrences in the Nome 1:250,000-scale quadrangle, Alaska This and related reports are accessible through the USGS World Wide Web site http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov. Comments or information regarding corrections or missing data, or requests for digital retrievals should be directed to: Frederic Wilson, USGS, 4200 University Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508-4667, e-mail [email protected], telephone (907) 786-7448. This compilation is authored by: C.C. Hawley, Anchorage, AK and Travis L. Hudson, Sequim, WA Alaska Resource Data File This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geologi- cal Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. OPEN-FILE REPORT 02-113 Nome B-1 quadrangle 2 Nome C-1 quadrangle 3 Nome C-2 quadrangle 4 Nome C-3 quadrangle 5 Nome D-1 quadrangle 6 Nome D-2 quadrangle 7 Nome D-3 quadrangle 8 Nome D-4 quadrangle 9 Alaska Resource Data File NM001 Site name(s): Sourdough Creek Site type: Occurrence ARDF no.: NM001 Latitude: 64.9843 Quadrangle: NM D-4 Longitude: 166.6175 Location description and accuracy: Sourdough Creek flows across the coastal plain about 2 to 3 miles east of Cape Douglas and enters a coastal lagoon about 6 miles southeast of Cape Douglas.
    [Show full text]