Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Review Report”

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 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
USGS2009

Quality-Assurance Data for Routine Water Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory in Troy, New York - July 2001 Through June 2003

The laboratory for analysis of low-ionic-strength water at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Center in Troy, N.Y., analyzes samples collected by USGS projects throughout the Northeast. The laboratory's quality-assurance program is based on internal and interlaboratory quality-assurance samples and quality-control procedures that were developed to ensure proper sample collection, processing, and analysis. The quality-assurance and quality-control data were stored in the laboratory's Lab Master data-management system, which provides efficient review, compilation, and plotting of data. This report presents and discusses results of quality-assurance and quality control samples analyzed from July 2001 through June 2003. Results for the quality-control samples for 19 analytical procedures were evaluated for bias and precision. Control charts indicate that data for six of the analytical procedures were occasionally biased for either high-concentration or low-concentration samples but were within control limits; these procedures were: acid-neutralizing capacity, chloride, magnesium, nitrate (ion chromatography), potassium, and sodium. The calcium procedure was biased throughout the analysis period for the high-concentration sample, but was within control limits. The total monomeric aluminum and fluoride procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the low-concentration sample, but were within control limits. The total aluminum, pH, specific conductance, and sulfate procedures were biased for the high-concentration and low-concentration samples, but were within control limits. Results from the filter-blank and analytical-blank analyses indicate that the procedures for 16 of 18 analytes were within control limits, although the concentrations for blanks were occasionally outside the control limits. The data-quality objective was not met for the dissolved organic carbon or specific conductance procedures. Sampling and analysis precision are evaluated herein in terms of the coefficient of variation obtained for triplicate samples in the procedures for 18 of the 21 analytes. At least 90 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for all procedures except total monomeric aluminum (83 percent of samples met objectives), total aluminum (76 percent of samples met objectives), ammonium (73 percent of samples met objectives), dissolved organic carbon (86 percent of samples met objectives), and nitrate (81 percent of samples met objectives). The data-quality objective was not met for the nitrite procedure. Results of the USGS interlaboratory Standard Reference Sample (SRS) Project indicated satisfactory or above data quality over the time period, with most performance ratings for each sample in the good-to-excellent range. The N-sample (nutrient constituents) analysis had one unsatisfactory rating for the ammonium procedure in one study. The T-sample (trace constituents) analysis had one unsatisfactory rating for the magnesium procedure and one marginal rating for the potassium procedure in one study and one unsatisfactory rating for the sodium procedure in another. Results of Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute (NWRI) program indicated that at least 90 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for 10 of the 14 analytes; the exceptions were acid-neutralizing capacity, ammonium, dissolved organic carbon, and sodium. Data-quality objectives were not met in 37 percent of samples analyzed for acid-neutralizing capacity, 28 percent of samples analyzed for dissolved organic carbon, and 30 percent of samples analyzed for sodium. Results indicate a positive bias for the ammonium procedure in one study and a negative bias in another. Results from blind reference-sample analyses indicated that data-quality objectives were met by at least 90 percent of the samples analyzed for calcium, chloride, magnesium, pH, potassium, and sodium. Data-quality objectives were met by 78 percent of

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Quality-assurance data for routine water analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory in Troy, New York - July 2003 through June 2005

The laboratory for analysis of low-ionic-strength water at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Center in Troy, N.Y., analyzes samples collected by USGS projects throughout the Northeast. The laboratory's quality-assurance program is based on internal and interlaboratory quality-assurance samples and quality-control procedures that were developed to ensure proper sample collection, processing, and analysis. The quality-assurance and quality-control data were stored in the laboratory's Lab Master data-management system, which provides efficient review, compilation, and plotting of data. This report presents and discusses results of quality-assurance and quality control samples analyzed from July 2003 through June 2005. Results for the quality-control samples for 20 analytical procedures were evaluated for bias and precision. Control charts indicate that data for five of the analytical procedures were occasionally biased for either high-concentration or low-concentration samples but were within control limits; these procedures were: acid-neutralizing capacity, total monomeric aluminum, pH, silicon, and sodium. Seven of the analytical procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the high-concentration sample, but were within control limits; these procedures were: dissolved organic carbon, chloride, nitrate (ion chromatograph), nitrite, silicon, sodium, and sulfate. The calcium and magnesium procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the low-concentration sample, but were within control limits. The total aluminum and specific conductance procedures were biased for the high-concentration and low-concentration samples, but were within control limits. Results from the filter-blank and analytical-blank analyses indicate that the procedures for 17 of 18 analytes were within control limits, although the concentrations for blanks were occasionally outside the control limits. The data-quality objective was not met for dissolved organic carbon. Sampling and analysis precision are evaluated herein in terms of the coefficient of variation obtained for triplicate samples in the procedures for 18 of the 22 analytes. At least 85 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for all analytes except total monomeric aluminum (82 percent of samples met objectives), total aluminum (77 percent of samples met objectives), chloride (80 percent of samples met objectives), fluoride (76 percent of samples met objectives), and nitrate (ion chromatograph) (79 percent of samples met objectives). The ammonium and total dissolved nitrogen did not meet the data-quality objectives. Results of the USGS interlaboratory Standard Reference Sample (SRS) Project indicated good data quality over the time period, with ratings for each sample in the satisfactory, good, and excellent ranges or less than 10 percent error. The P-sample (low-ionic-strength constituents) analysis had one marginal and two unsatisfactory ratings for the chloride procedure. The T-sample (trace constituents)analysis had two unsatisfactory ratings and one high range percent error for the aluminum procedure. The N-sample (nutrient constituents) analysis had one marginal rating for the nitrate procedure. Results of Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute (NWRI) program indicated that at least 84 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for 11 of the 14 analytes; the exceptions were ammonium, total aluminum, and acid-neutralizing capacity. The ammonium procedure did not meet data quality objectives in all studies. Data-quality objectives were not met in 23 percent of samples analyzed for total aluminum and 45 percent of samples analyzed acid-neutralizing capacity. Results from blind reference-sample analyses indicated that data-quality objectives were met by at least 86 percent of the samples analyzed for calcium, chloride, fluoride, magnesium, pH, potassium, sodium, and sulfate. Data-quality objectives were not met by samples analyzed for fluoride.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Quality-Assurance Data for Routine Water Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory in Troy, New York - July 2005 through June 2007

The laboratory for analysis of low-ionic-strength water at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Center in Troy, N.Y., analyzes samples collected by USGS projects throughout the Northeast. The laboratory's quality-assurance program is based on internal and interlaboratory quality-assurance samples and quality-control procedures that were developed to ensure proper sample collection, processing, and analysis. The quality-assurance and quality-control data were stored in the laboratory's Lab Master data-management system, which provides efficient review, compilation, and plotting of data. This report presents and discusses results of quality-assurance and quality control samples analyzed from July 2005 through June 2007. Results for the quality-control samples for 19 analytical procedures were evaluated for bias and precision. Control charts indicate that data for eight of the analytical procedures were occasionally biased for either high-concentration or low-concentration samples but were within control limits; these procedures were: total aluminum, calcium, magnesium, nitrate (colorimetric method), potassium, silicon, sodium, and sulfate. Eight of the analytical procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the high-concentration sample, but were within control limits; these procedures were: total aluminum, calcium, dissolved organic carbon, chloride, nitrate (ion chromatograph), potassium, silicon, and sulfate. The magnesium and pH procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for the low-concentration sample, but were within control limits. The acid-neutralizing capacity, total monomeric aluminum, nitrite, and specific conductance procedures were biased for the high-concentration and low-concentration samples, but were within control limits. Results from the filter-blank and analytical-blank analyses indicated that the procedures for 16 of 17 analytes were within control limits, although the concentrations for blanks were occasionally outside the control limits. The data-quality objective was not met for dissolved organic carbon. Sampling and analysis precision are evaluated herein in terms of the coefficient of variation obtained for triplicate samples in the procedures for 18 of the 21 analytes. At least 93 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for all analytes except acid-neutralizing capacity (85 percent of samples met objectives), total monomeric aluminum (83 percent of samples met objectives), total aluminum (85 percent of samples met objectives), and chloride (85 percent of samples met objectives). The ammonium and total dissolved nitrogen did not meet the data-quality objectives. Results of the USGS interlaboratory Standard Reference Sample (SRS) Project met the Troy Laboratory data-quality objectives for 87 percent of the samples analyzed. The P-sample (low-ionic-strength constituents) analysis had two outliers each in two studies. The T-sample (trace constituents) analysis and the N-sample (nutrient constituents) analysis had one outlier each in two studies. Results of Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute (NWRI) program indicated that at least 85 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives for 11 of the 14 analytes; the exceptions were acid-neutralizing capacity, total aluminum and ammonium. Data-quality objectives were not met in 41 percent of samples analyzed for acid-neutralizing capacity, 50 percent of samples analyzed for total aluminum, and 44 percent of samples analyzed for ammonium. Results from blind reference-sample analyses indicated that data-quality objectives were met by at least 86 percent of the samples analyzed for calcium, magnesium, pH, potassium, and sodium. Data-quality objectives were met by 76 percent of the samples analyzed for chloride, 80 percent of the samples analyzed for specific conductance, and 77 percent of the samples analyzed for sulfate.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1996

Total dissolved gas, barometric pressure, and water temperature data, lower Columbia River, Oregon and Washington, 1996

Increased levels of total dissolved gas pressure can cause gas-bubble trauma in fish downstream from dams on the Columbia River. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey collected data on total dissolved gas pressure, barometric pressure, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen pressure at 11 stations on the lower Columbia River from the John Day forebay (river mile 215.6) to Wauna Mill (river mile 41.9) from March to September 1996. Methods of data collection, review, and processing are described in this report. Summaries of daily minimum, maximum, and mean hourly values are presented for total dissolved gas pressure, barometric pressure, and water temperature. Hourly values for these parameters are presented graphically. Dissolved oxygen data are not presented in this report because the quality-control data show that the data have poor precision and high bias. Suggested changes to monitoring procedures for future studies include (1) improved calibration procedures for total dissolved gas and dissolved oxygen to better define accuracy at elevated levels of supersaturation and (2) equipping dissolved oxygen sensors with stirrers because river velocities at the shoreline monitoring stations probably cannot maintain an adequate flow of water across the membrane surface of the dissolved oxygen sensor.

Oregon, Washington↗
USGS1951

Summary of the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, for the period January 1-March 31, 1951

This report summarized the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch for the period January 1 - March 31, 1951. Work before that is summarized in an earlier report, "Summary of the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, for the period April 1, 1948 - December 31, 1950," by John C. Rabbitt (U.S. Geol. Survey Trace Elements Investigations Rept. 148, January 1951). This report will be referred to as TEIR 148. In TEIR 148 the purpose of each project was described and it is not thought necessary to repeat that material. The research work of the section consists of laboratory and related field studies in the following fields: 1. Mineralogic and petrologic investigations of radioactive rocks, minerals, and ores. 2. Investigations of chemical methods of analysis for uranium, thorium, and other elements and compounds in radioactive materials, and related chemical problems. 3. Investigations of spectographic method of analysis for a wide variety of elements in radioactive materials. 4. Investigation of radiometric methods of analysis is applied to radioactive materials. It should be emphasized that the work undertaken so far is almost entirely in the nature of investigations supporting the field appraisal of known uraniferous deposits. A program of more fundamental research, particularly in the mineralogy and geochemistry of uranium, is now being drawn up and will be submitted for approval soon. This report does not deal with the routine analytical work of the Section nor the public-sample program. The analytical work will be summarized in a report to be issued after the end of fiscal year 1951, and a report on the public-sample program is in process. Special thanks are due members of the Section who are engaged in the research work and who have supplied material for this report, the Early Ingerson, Chief of the Geochemistry and Petrology Branch for his critical review, to Jane Titcomb of the editorial staff of the Section for editing the report, and to Virginia Layne of the same staff, for typing the manuscript and the multilith mats.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2012

Science summary in support of Manatee Protection Area (MPA) design in Puerto Rico

The Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus), a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, is listed as endangered by the US Department of Interior. In accordance with its listing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Caribbean Field Office (USFWS) is mandated to create one or more Manatee Protection Areas (MPAs) for Puerto Rico. Designation of these areas must comply with the legal definition of an MPA’s purpose: to prevent or reduce take of manatees (CFR 50: 44 FR 60964, Oct. 22, 1979). To meet this goal, we pursued two objectives: 1) identify areas which include the specific ecological attributes necessary to support manatee populations, and 2) identify areas where take can be reduced through approved MPA regulatory frameworks. We achieved these objectives through literature review, expert elicitation, and geospatial modeling. This report delivers to USFWS a set of nine potential MPA regions. These regions represent the spatial realization of experts’ hypotheses regarding manatee requirements and threats, and the potential to implement MPA strategies (e.g. watercraft access, speed regulations, signage and boater education). The nine regions are compared based on a number of factors, including their potential to reduce take, quality of the habitat encompassed, and total area. These maps and statistics serve as suitable starting points to select one or more MPA sites, but we recommend that the mapped attributes and threats (i.e., boating activity) of MPAs be ground-truthed to visually confirm the local presence of resources, threats, and manatees before any area is selected. Once established, the effectiveness of MPAs can be monitored and updated through processes of adaptive monitoring and management. Aerial surveys, radio tracking studies, and public surveys are all valuable tools to assess the success of an MPA. Establishing MPAs is a management action that, integrated within the species Recovery Plan, should enhance the conservation of manatees.

Cooperator Science Series↗
USGS2013

Executive summary: Climate change in the northwest: Implications for our landscapes, waters, and communities

Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities is aimed at assessing the state of knowledge about key climate impacts and consequences to various sectors and communities in the northwest United States. It draws on a wealth of peer-reviewed literature, earlier state-level assessment reports conducted for Washington (2009) and Oregon (2010), as well as a risk-framing workshop. As an assessment, it aims to be representative (though not exhaustive) of the key climate change issues as reflected in the growing body of Northwest climate change science, impacts, and adaptation literature now available. This report will serve as an updated resource for scientists, stakeholders, decision makers, students, and community members interested in understanding and preparing for climate change impacts on Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. This more detailed, foundational report is intended to support the key findings presented in the Northwest chapter of the Third National Climate Assessment.

Idaho;Oregon;Washington↗
USGS2008

Environmental presence and persistence of pharmaceuticals: An overview

Emerging contaminants (ECs) in the environment – that is, chemicals with domestic, municipal, industrial, or agricultural sources that are not commonly monitored but may have the potential for adverse environmental effects – is a rapidly growing field of research. The use of “emerging” is not intended to infer that the presence of these compounds in the environment is new. These chemicals have been released into the environment as long as they have been in production or, in the case of hormones and other endogenous compounds, since the rise of animal life. What is emerging is the interest by the scientific and lay communities in the presence of these chemicals in the environment, the analytical capabilities required for detection, and the subtle effects that very small concentrations of these chemicals appear to have on aquatic biota. In December 2006, Environmental Science & Technology devoted an entire special issue (volume 40, number 23) to the topic of ECs, illustrating the increased interest in the subject. Within the EGs, one particular class that has seen a substantial increase in research over the past 10 years is pharmaceuticals and personal-care products (PPCPs). This increased research interest can be demonstrated by several means, including requests for proposals from funding agencies, but the clearest indication of a focused effort to understand the introduction, transformation, and potential health and environmental effects of PPCPs and ECs, in general, is the number of published reports. This increase can be shown by examining six environmental journals that regularly publish PPCP-related papers – Chemosphere , Environmental Science & Technology , Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , Science of the Total Environment , Water Research , and Water Science and Technology . In 1998 there were 22 papers published on pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, or drugs in these 6 journals; by 2006, this number increased sixfold to 132 papers (Figure 1.1). This growth can be attributed to a number of factors. The presence of pharmaceuticals in surface-water samples from Europe and the United States was documented in several sentinel papers. These ground-breaking works encouraged other scientists to examine the rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs in their regions for such chemicals. In addition, the intense public attention paid to news reports on the environmental detections of these chemicals and possible effects of aquatic life has made this issue visible to the wastewater-treatment, drinking-water treatment, and regulatory communities. This has driven the funding bodies associated with these communities to fund studies or request proposals that address the presence, fate, and effects of PPCPs in aquatic systems. The release of the first comprehensive reconnaissance of pharmaceuticals and other wastewater contaminants in the United States provides an example of the intense media interest in this topic. Within 6 days on online publication of this study, 72 newspapers across the United States had published articles describing the results, either locally written or based on international media syndicate reports. There also was substantial concurrent coverage by local and national radio and television outlets, including the Cable News Network, ABC World News Tonight , and National Public Radio. A substantial fraction of these news stories may be attributable to press releases and media briefings prior to publication. However, the interest by television and print journalists in reporting the results of a peer-reviewed journal article to the general public was motivated by the recognition that describing the presence of PPCPs in water supplies would be of interest to the public. To better convey the results of the study published by Koplin et al. to the public, a separate general-interest fact sheet was published to summarize the important points of the study. Because PPCPs are commonly and widely used by individuals, there is likely a preexisting, personal identification with these compounds that does not occur for the wide range of other organic and inorganic contaminants whose presence in the environment has previously been described. This greater public “name recognition” makes itself known through the media to the regulatory and technical community and has prompted interest in sponsoring research that defines the composition and concentrations of PPCPs in potential sources and their fate and effects following relase into the environment. Independent of the drivers that potentially fuel the interest in studies of PPCPs, it is clear that PPCP research has grown beyond surface-water studies to examine issues such as: • Presence in other matrices, such as groundwater, landfill leachates, sediments, and biosolids. • Environmental transport and fate in surface water, groundwater, and soils amended with reclaimed water or biosolids. • PPCP source elucidation, such as wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and aquaculture. • Removal during wastewater and drinking-water treatment. • Effects on aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems, and human health. The chapters in this book provide an extensive examination of current environmental pharmaceutical research and are divided into three sections: “Occurrence and Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in the Environment,” “Environment Fate and Transformations of Veterinary Pharmaceuticals,” and “treatment of Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water and Wastewater.” The purpose of this introductory overview chapter is to outline current (2004-2006) knowledge about the presence and concentration of PPCPs as described in the published literature. Previous reviews should be consulted for discussions on pre-2004 publications. Those reviews will provide the reader with a comprehensive introduction to the topic of PPCPs in the environment. This chapter describes the sources of PPCPs and other organic contaminants often associated with human wastewater into the environment, the range of concentrations present in various environmental compartments, and the potential routes of removal/sequestration. An overview of the sources and fate of veterinary pharmaceuticals will be discussed in Chapter 5, “Fate and Transport of Veterinary Medicines in the Soil Environment.”

Book chapter↗
USGS2016

Shifting currents: Progress, setbacks, and shifts in policy and practice

The Wisconsin Academy’s initial Waters of Wisconsin project (WOW I) facilitated a statewide conversation between 2000 and 2003 around one main question: How can we ensure healthy aquatic ecosystems and clean, abundant water supplies for tomorrow’s Wisconsin? Robust participation in this conversation underscored the important role citizens have in the stewardship of our waters, and we found enthusiastic support for farsighted policies—based on sound science—to manage our water legacy. Overall, we found that Wisconsinites cherish water and see our waters as essential to our way of life in Wisconsin. Nationally, our state ranks 25th in land area but has the fourth-highest area covered by water. Wisconsin is 20th in population but is second only to Florida in the number of fishing licenses sold each year. Clean water supports billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity through tourism, agriculture, and industry. From the Northwoods cabin to the Port of Milwaukee to the Wisconsin Dells, water shapes our state’s identity. Our tradition of safeguarding Wisconsin’s waters is grounded in values such as responsibility to family and future generations, respect for land and wildlife, protecting public health and safety, and caring for water as a common good, as articulated in the state’s Public Trust Doctrine (see page 9). These deeply held values have also shaped a conservation ethic, and its legacy has served many generations who depend upon and enjoy the waters of the state. Through WOW I, we identified the need to overcome the institutional and disciplinary separation of science, policy, and management protocols through a more integrated approach to water management. WOW also affirmed that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other public agencies play a critical role in sound scientific application, citizen participation, and the practical implementation of policy while balancing public and private interests toward the goal of a clean water future. More than a decade has passed since our first statewide WOW conversation and the report that captured recommendations from its participants: Waters of Wisconsin: The Future of Our Aquatic Ecosystems and Resources. Drawing from a diverse and growing set of stakeholders from across the state, the Wisconsin Academy initiated a new conversation in 2012 (known as WOW II) to assess progress in regard to our 2003 recommendations. We also sought to review the status of waters in Wisconsin today. The result of this renewed conversation is Shifting Currents: Progress, Setbacks, and Shifts in Policy and Practice. The new report assesses progress in brief, and explores in greater depth the continuing and emerging challenges to water quality, supply, and aquatic ecosystems in Wisconsin. In this report, we first review the context and frameworks for public decision-making about water and then examine some of the root causes—or “drivers”—and ecological stressors that underlie many of the symptoms we see in the form of pollution or ecosystem degradation in Wisconsin. This is followed by a summary of current water issues, many of which had been identified in the 2003 report and remain relevant today. We examine progress since 2003 but also setbacks, and discuss issues that we are likely to continue to face in the coming decades, including controlling agricultural runoff, mitigating climate change and grappling with its effects on the state’s waters, protecting groundwater from bacterial contamination and other pollutants, and preventing groundwater depletion. We also attempt to anticipate issues on the horizon. We offer a deeper look at some particular challenges, such as phosphorus pollution and groundwater contamination. We then consider the current decision-making framework and how it is shaping our capacity to respond to water challenges in Wisconsin. Finally, we offer recommendations and identify opportunities to safeguard Wisconsin’s waters in the decades ahead. From its inception, the Wisconsin Academy’s Waters of Wisconsin Initiative has brought together a diverse community of experts from across the state and from varied fields and areas of interest, to address challenges and seize opportunities related to our precious waters. We have done so as a matter of both principle and practical reality: the state of our waters reflects the ways we interact not only with them, but also with one another and our institutions. The WOW Initiative has aimed to provide guidance for Wisconsin citizens in sustaining the health of our aquatic ecosystems and the resilience of our water supplies over the long term.

Report↗
USGS2023

Oil and gas reclamation—Operations, monitoring methods, and standards

This publication provides broad guidance for surface management of oil and gas development with a focus on promoting successful reclamation. Successful reclamation depends on sound best management practices, clear standards and expectations, defensible monitoring for effectiveness, and management of production facilities to minimize surface disturbance. This publication provides specific guidelines for surface management of oil and gas, including operations, standards, and monitoring. The development of this report was guided by existing Federal reclamation policy, a review of the scientific and other literature, as well as practical field experience. Expertise was pulled from multiple sources including Federal and State agencies, oil and gas contractors, and academia. The target audience for this report is primarily operators and contractors conducting oil and gas activities on U.S. Federal or Tribal lands and the surface management agencies responsible for guiding and enforcing these activities. The guidance on surface management presented here will also be useful for managing oil and gas activities on State and private lands and where private land occurs over Federal mineral estate (split estate).

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2005

Quality-assurance data for routine water analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory in Troy, New York—July 1995 through June 1997

The laboratory for analysis of low-ionic-strength water at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) office in Troy, N.Y. analyzes samples collected by USGS projects in the Northeast. The laboratory’s quality-assurance program is based on internal and interlaboratory quality-assurance samples and quality-control procedures developed to ensure proper sample collection, processing, and analysis. For the time period addressed in this report, the quality-assurance/quality-control data were stored in the laboratory’s SAS data-management system, which provides efficient review, compilation, and plotting of quality-assurance/quality-control data. This report presents and discusses samples analyzed from July 1995 through June 1997. Quality-control results for 19 analytical procedures were evaluated for bias and precision. Control charts show that data from ten of the analytical procedures were biased throughout the analysis period for either high-concentration or low-concentration samples but were within control limits; these procedures were: acid-neutralizing capacity, total monomeric aluminum, ammonium, calcium, chloride, dissolved organic carbon, magnesium, nitrate (ion chromatography), nitrate (colorimetric method), and sulfate. Four of the analytical procedures were occasionally biased but were within control limits; they were: fluoride, pH, silicon, and sodium. Results from the filter-blank and analytical-blank analyses indicate that all analytical procedures in which blanks were run were within control limits, although values for a few blanks were outside the control limits. Sampling and analysis precision are evaluated herein in terms of the coefficient of variation obtained for triplicate samples in 14 of the 19 procedures. Data-quality objectives (DQO’s) were met by at least 92 percent of the samples analyzed in all procedures except acid neutralizing capacity (80 percent of samples met objectives), total monomeric aluminum (87 percent of samples met objectives), organic monomeric aluminum (89 percent of samples met objectives), and chloride (89 percent of samples met objectives). The data are insufficient to evaluate the DQO’s for total aluminum. Results of the USGS interlaboratory Standard Reference Sample Program indicated acceptable data quality for most constituents over the time period. The results of the P-sample (low-ionic strength constituent) analysis indicated high data quality with good ratings in all studies. The T-sample (trace constituent) had unacceptable ratings in two studies, but received satisfactory ratings in the others. The N-sample (nutrient constituent) studies had an unacceptable rating in one and an excellent rating in the other. Environment Canada’s NWRI program results indicated that at least 90 percent of the samples met data-quality objectives in 9 of the 12 analyses; exceptions were calcium, chloride, and silicon. Data-quality objectives were not met for calcium samples in two NWRI studies, but all of the samples analyzed were within control limits for the remaining studies. Data-quality objectives were not met for 32 percent of samples analyzed for chloride and 27 percent of samples analyzed for silicon. Results from blind reference-sample analyses indicated that data-quality objectives were met by at least 90 percent of the calcium, pH, potassium, and sodium samples. Data-quality objectives were met by 77 percent of the chloride samples, 83 percent of the magnesium samples, and 80 percent of the sulfate samples. There is insufficient data to evaluate the specific conductance samples.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

The U.S. Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory: an integrated scientific program supporting research and conservation of North American birds

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) was established in 1920 after ratification of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the United Kingdom in 1918. During World War II, the BBL was moved from Washington, D.C., to what is now the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC). The BBL issues permits and bands to permittees to band birds, records bird band recoveries or encounters primarily through telephone and Internet reporting, and manages more than 72 million banding records and more than 4.5 million records of encounters using state-of-the-art technologies. Moreover, the BBL also issues bands and manages banding and encounter data for the Canadian Bird Banding Office (BBO). Each year approximately 1 million bands are shipped from the BBL to banders in the United States and Canada, and nearly 100,000 encounter reports are entered into the BBL systems. Banding data are essential for regulatory programs, especially migratory waterfowl harvest regulations. The USGS BBL works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop regulations for the capture, handling, banding, and marking of birds. These regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In 2006, the BBL and the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM) began a comprehensive revision of the banding regulations. The bird banding community has three major constituencies: Federal and State agency personnel involved in the management and conservation of bird populations that include the Flyway Councils, ornithological research scientists, and avocational banders. With increased demand for banding activities and relatively constant funding, a Federal Advisory Committee (Committee) was chartered and reviewed the BBL program in 2005. The final report of the Committee included six major goals and 58 specific recommendations, 47 of which have been addressed by the BBL. Specifically, the Committee recommended the BBL continue to support science, conservation, and management of birds through the use of banding and banding data and that the BBL be managed by the USGS and located at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in Laurel, Maryland. Recommendations that have not been implemented include those already addressed by other organizations, as well as lower priority, such as developing a BBL business plan. The comprehensive review and recommendations of the Committee, the response of the BBL to address the Committee’s recommendations, and other improvements to its operations have positioned the BBL to provide a high level of service to the banding community. As new technologies are developed and incorporated into BBL operations, further efficiencies are expected to enable the BBL to continue to meet emerging scientific needs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2021

Decision context as an essential component of population viability analysis

Population viability analysis (PVA) is a widely used tool that applies demographic data in simulation frameworks to assess extinction risk for species or populations. It is used in diverse conservation applications, including evaluating management effectiveness, relative risk of threats, and potential changes to protective status (Beissinger & McCullough, 2002 ), and can be a critical tool for making decisions with imperfect knowledge of the system state, often on limited timelines (Meine et al., 2006 ). Chaudhary and Oli ( 2020 ) recently developed a framework to appraise the quality of PVAs based on the presence of essential background, model, and analysis components. They evaluated 160 published PVAs and reported a decline in the quality of PVAs over time (1990−2017). We agree PVA studies should report unambiguous descriptions of their essential components (Table 1 in Chaudhary and Oli) and explicitly state the model's biological and statistical assumptions. The need for increased transparency in PVAs is evident. Morrison et al. ( 2016 ) reported that only 50% of PVAs published in peer-reviewed and gray literature were both reproducible and repeatable. Further, in an examination of 67 studies that used matrix population models (widely used in PVAs), Kendall et al. ( 2019 ) reported that models frequently contained misspecification errors. Given the rapid advancement of simulation techniques, updated guidance for PVA construction is warranted. However, we believe the essential PVA components identified by Chaudhary and Oli contain a critical omission: the decision context in which the PVA was created and its usefulness in that context. Quality and utility are not mutually exclusive; however, some models that do not meet idealized quality standards might still be valuable because they are useful and represent the best available science for a given decision context (hereafter, decision-support models). The definition of quality for decision-support models should be different than models developed for the purpose of learning (hereafter, heuristic models) and should incorporate how useful the model was, despite information gaps. We further argue that assessment questions should be used prospectively to guide modeling projects, rather than for retrospective comparison of model quality.

Conservation Biology↗