Hydrological, Sedimentological, and Meteorological Observations and Analysis on the Sagavanirktok River

The Dalton Highway near Deadhorse was closed twice during late March and early April 2015 because of extensive overflow from the Sagavanirktok River that flowed over the highway. That spring, researchers from the Water and Environmental Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) monitored the river conditions during breakup, which was characterized by unprecedented flooding that overtopped and consequently destroyed several sections of the Dalton Highway near Deadhorse. The UAF research team has monitored breakup conditions at the Sagavanirktok River since that time. Given the magnitude of the 2015 flooding, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company started a long-term monitoring program within the river basin. In addition, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) funded a multiyear project related to sediment transport conditions along the Sagavanirktok River. The general objectives of these projects include determining ice elevations, identifying possible water sources, establishing surface hydro-meteorological conditions prior to breakup, measuring hydro-sedimentological conditions during breakup and summer, and reviewing historical imagery of the aufeis extent. In the present report, we focus on new data and analyze it in the context of previous data. We calculated and compared ice thickness near Franklin Bluffs for 2015, 2016, and 2017, and found that, in general, ice thickness during both 2015 and 2016 was greater than in 2017 across most of the study area. Results from a stable isotope analysis indicate that winter overflow, which forms the aufeis in the river area near Franklin Bluffs, has similar isotopic characteristics to water flowing from mountain springs. End-of-winter snow surveys (in 2016/2017) within the watershed indicate that the average snow water equivalent was similar to what we observed in winter 2015/2016. Air temperatures in May 2017 were low on the Alaska North Slope, which caused a long and gradual breakup, with peak flows occurring in early June, compared with mid-May in both 2015 and 2016. Maximum discharge measured at the East Bank station, near Franklin Bluffs was 750 m3/s (26,485 ft3/s) on May 30, 2017, while the maximum measured flow was 1560 m3/s (55,090 ft3/s) at the same station on May 20, 2015. Available cumulative rainfall data indicate that 2016 was wetter than 2017. ii In September 2015, seven dry and wet pits were dug near the hydro-sedimentological monitoring stations along the Sagavanirktok River study reach. The average grain-size of the sediment of exposed gravel bars at sites located upstream of the Ivishak-Sagavanirktok confluence show relatively constant values. Grain size becomes finer downstream of the confluence. We conducted monthly topo-bathymetric surveys during the summer months of 2016 and 2017 in each pit. Sediment deposition and erosion was observed in each of the pits. Calculated sedimentation volumes in each pit show the influence of the Ivishak River in the bed sedimenttransport capacity of the Sagavanirktok River. In addition, comparison between dry and wet pit sedimentation volumes in some of the stations proves the complexity of a braided river, which is characterized by frequent channel shifting A two-dimensional hydraulic model is being implemented for a material site. The model will be used to estimate the required sediment refill time based on different river conditions.ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER ........................................................................ xvi CONVERSION FACTORS, UNITS, WATER QUALITY UNITS, VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DATUM, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS .......................................... xvii ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS .............................................................. xix 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Sagavanirktok River near MP318 Site 066 (DSS4) ......................................................... 7 2.2 Sagavanirktok River at Happy Valley Site 005 (DSS3) .................................................. 7 2.3 Sagavanirktok River below the Confluence with the Ivishak River (DSS2) ................... 9 2.4 Sagavanirktok River near MP405 Site 042 (DSS1) ....................................................... 10 3 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 13 3.1 Pits .................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Excavation............................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Surveying ................................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Surface Meteorology ...................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Aufeis Extent .................................................................................................................. 17 3.3.1 Field Methods ......................................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Imagery ................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Water Level Measurements ............................................................................................ 19 3.5 Runoff............................................................................................................................. 20 3.6 Suspended Sediment ...................................................................................................... 21 3.7 Turbidity ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.8 Stable Isotopes................................................................................................................ 22 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Meteorology ................................................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 Air Temperature ...................................................................................................... 23 4.1.2 Precipitation ............................................................................................................ 31 4.1.2.1 Cold Season Precipitation ................................................................................ 31 4.1.2.2 Warm Season Precipitation ............................................................................. 36 4.1.3 Wind Speed and Direction ...................................................................................... 39 iv 4.2 Aufeis Extent .................................................................................................................. 40 4.2.1 Historical Aufeis at Franklin Bluffs ........................................................................ 41 4.2.2 Delineating Ice Surface Elevation with GPS and Aerial Imagery .......................... 45 4.3 Surface Water Hydrology ............................................................................................... 52 4.3.1 Sagavanirktok River at MP318 (DSS4) .................................................................. 58 4.3.2 Sagavanirktok River at Happy Valley (DSS3) ....................................................... 61 4.3.3 Sagavanirktok River near MP347 (ASS1) .............................................................. 65 4.3.4 Sagavanirktok River below the Ivishak River (DSS2) ........................................... 66 4.3.5 Sagavanirktok River at East Bank (DSS5) near Franklin Bluffs ............................ 70 4.3.6 Sagavanirktok River at MP405 (DSS1) West Channel .......................................... 78 4.3.7 Additional Field Observations ................................................................................ 82 4.3.8 Preliminary Rating Curves and Estimated Discharge ............................................. 85 4.4 Stable Isotopes................................................................................................................ 86 4.5 Sediment Grain Size Distribution .................................................................................. 90 4.5.1 Streambed Sediment Grain Size Distribution ......................................................... 90 4.5.2 Suspended Sediment Grain Size Distribution ......................................................... 94 4.6 Suspended Sediment Concentration ............................................................................... 95 4.6.1 Sagavanirktok River near MP318 (DSS4) .............................................................. 95 4.6.2 Sagavanirktok River at Happy Valley (DSS3) ..................................................... 100 4.6.3 Sagavanirktok River below the Ivishak River (DSS2) ......................................... 105 4.6.4 Sagavanirktok River near MP405 (DSS1) ............................................................ 111 4.6.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 114 4.7 Turbidity ....................................................................................................................... 116 4.7.1 Sagavanirktok River near MP318 (DSS4) ............................................................ 116 4.7.2 Sagavanirktok River at Happy Valley (DSS3) ..................................................... 119 4.7.3 Sagavanirktok River below the Ivishak (DSS2) ................................................... 124 4.7.4 Sagavanirktok River near MP405 (DSS1) ............................................................ 126 4.7.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 130 4.8 Analysis of Pits............................................................................................................. 130 4.8.1 Photographs of Pits ............................................................................................... 130 4.8.2 GIS Analysis of Pit Bathymetry ........................................................................... 141 4.8.3 Pit Sedimentation .................................................................................................. 142 4.8.4 Erosion Surveys .................................................................................................... 149 4.8.5 Patterns of Sediment Transport Along the River .................................................. 156 v 4.9 Hydraulic Modeling ..................................................................................................... 158 4.9.1 Model Development .............................................................................................. 160 4.9.2 Results of Simulation ............................................................................................ 165 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 171 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 174 7 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 18

Control of Equine Infectious Anemia Virus Is Not Dependent on ADCC Mediating Antibodies

AbstractHorses infected with equine infectious anemia virus (EIAV) have recurrent episodes of viremia which are eventually controlled, but the immune mechanisms have not been identified. Antibodies were detected to the surface of EIAV-infected cells within 1 month postinfection and remained for at least 3.5 years postinfection. These antibodies recognized cell surface-exposed envelope (Env) glycoproteins, but could not mediate antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) using EIAV-WSU5-infected equine kidney (EK) cells as targets and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) or polymorphonuclear cells (PMN) as effector cells. Furthermore, purified IgG antibodies from horses infected with either EIAV-WSU5 or EIAV-Wyo did not mediate ADCC of infected target cells. Armed effector cells could not be detected in infected horse blood nor could effector cells be prearmed by incubation with serum antibodies to cell surface antigens. The use of EIAV-WSU5-infected equine macrophages as target cells did not result in ADCC. In contrast, serum antibody from EHV-1 vaccinated horses and PBMC or PMN as effector cells caused ADCC of EHV-1-infected EK cells. These results indicate that ADCC is not involved in the control of EIAV in carrier horses

Gemcitabine, 5-Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in Advanced Biliary Tract and Gallbladder Carcinoma: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine has broad activity in a variety of solid tumors including biliary tract carcinomas. The authors evaluated 6-month survival, response, and toxicity associated with a combination of gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and leucovorin (LV) in patients with unresectable or metastatic biliary tract or gallbladder adenocarcinoma (ACA). METHODS: A 4-week course included 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine by intravenous infusion over 30 minutes on Days 1, 8, and 15, 25 mg/m2 LV by intravenous push, and 600 mg/m2 5-FU by intravenous push after LV. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled in 6 months, 35 of whom had metastatic disease. Patients with biliary tract ACA included 24 with hepatic disease (19 patients had intrahepatic disease and 5 patients had extrahepatic disease) and 4 with disease in the ampulla of Vater. All patients were evaluable and received a median of 4 courses of treatment (range, 1-21 courses). Commonly occurring severe toxicity (NCI CTC Grade 3 or worse) included: dyspnea (four patients), nausea (four patients), fatigue (seven patients), thrombocytopenia (six patients), emesis (four patients), and diarrhea (four patients). Five partial responses (9.5%) occurred, 3 of which were sustained for \u3e or = 8 weeks. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Thirty-two patients had disease progression and 38 died after a median follow-up of 20 months (range, 1.4-24 months). The median time to disease progression was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.4-6.6%). The median survival period was 9.7 months (95% CI, 7-12%). CONCLUSIONS: This combination regimen was manageable in patients with advanced biliary tract and gallbladder ACA. Of 42 patients, 24 (57%) survived \u3e or = 6 months, satisfying the primary end point of the trial. The length of survival suggested that gemcitabine, 5-FU, and LV had benefit equivalent to gemcitabine alone

Combined Levamisole with Recombinant Interleukin-2 (IL-2) in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Phase II Study.

Adoptive immunotherapy (AI) with interleukin-2 (IL-2) and lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells is an antineoplastic modality in which immune-activated cells are administered to a host having cancer in an attempt to mediate tumor regression. Levamisole (LEV), an immune stimulant, has been suggested as having therapeutic effectiveness in a variety of cancers. After a phase I trial of recombinant IL-2 plus LEV, a phase II trial of this combination was conducted in patients who had advanced renal cell carcinoma. The regimen was IL-2 at 3 x 10(6) U/m2 daily x 5 plus LEV at 50 mg/m2 perorally three times a day x 5. Only one of the 22 eligible patients had a regression. It was a partial regression, 85 days in duration. The median time to treatment failure (refusal, progression, or off study because of toxicity) was 36 days. The only grade 4 toxicity reported was lethargy. This regimen is not recommended for further testing in patients who have advanced renal cell carcinoma