Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “EPA 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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1987

Hydrology and water quality of East Lake Tohopekaliga, Osceola County, Florida

East Lake Tohopekaliga, one of the major lakes in central Florida, is located in the upper Kissimmee River basin in north-east Osceola County. It is one of numerous lakes in the upper basin used for flood control, in addition to recreation and some irrigation of surrounding pasture. This report is the fourth in a series of lake reconnaissance studies in the Kissimmee River basin prepared in cooperation with the South Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the report is to provide government agencies and the public with a brief summary of the lake 's hydrology and water quality. Site information is given and includes map number, site name, location, and type of data available (specific conductivity, pH, alkalinity, turbidity, color, dissolved oxygen, hardness, dissolved chlorides, dissolved sodium, dissolved calcium, dissolved magnesium, dissolved potassium, nitrogen, ammonia, nitrates, carbon and phosphorus). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintained a lake stage gaging station on East Lake Tohopekaliga from 1942 to 1968. The South Florida Water Management District has recorded lake stage since 1963. Periodic water quality samples have been collected from the lake by the South Florida Water Management District and USGS. Water quality and discharge data have been collected for one major tributary to the lake, Boggy Creek. Although few groundwater data are available for the study area, results of previous studies of the groundwater resources of Osceola County are included in this report. To supplement the water quality data for East Lake Tohopekaliga, water samples were collected at selected sites in November 1982 (dry season) and in August 1983 (rainy season). Samples were taken at inflow points, and in the lake, and vertical profiles of dissolved oxygen and temperature were measured in the lake. A water budget from an EPA report on the lake is also included. (Lantz-PTT)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2001

[Book review] A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference to Chinook Salmon, by D.A. McCullough

Review of: A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference to Chinook Salmon. By Dale A. McCullough. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 22 February 1999. REPORT #: EPA 910-R-99-010.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society↗
USGS2023

Geologic carbon management options for the North Atlantic-Appalachian Region

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) North Atlantic-Appalachian Region is developing the regionwide capacity to provide timely science support for decision-makers attempting to enhance carbon removal, sequestration, and emissions mitigation to meet national atmospheric carbon reduction goals. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that in 2021, the fourteen States and the District of Columbia in the northeastern region account about for approximately 18 percent of the total national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This Fact Sheet provides a summary of USGS science information and ongoing and new investigations or data-collection programs that may help the northeastern region decrease the release of carbon-containing GHG to the atmosphere.

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachuse↗
USGS2015

Air- and stream-water-temperature trends in the Chesapeake Bay region, 1960-2014

Water temperature is a basic, but important, measure of the condition of all aquatic environments, including the flowing waters in the streams that drain our landscape and the receiving waters of those streams. Climatic conditions have a strong influence on water temperature, which is therefore naturally variable both in time and across the landscape. Changes to natural water-temperature regimes, however, can result in a myriad of effects on aquatic organisms, water quality, circulation patterns, recreation, industry, and utility operations. For example, most species of fish, insects, and other organisms, as well as aquatic vegetation, are highly dependent on water temperature. Warming waters can result in shifts in floral and faunal species distributions, including invasive species and pathogens previously unable to inhabit the once cooler streams. Many chemical processes are temperature dependent, with reactions occurring faster in warmer conditions, leading to degraded water quality as contaminants are released into waterways at greater rates. Circulation patterns in receiving waters, such as bays and estuaries, can change as a result of warmer inflows from streams, thereby affecting organisms in those receiving waters. Changes in abundance of some aquatic species and (or) degradation of water quality can reduce the recreational value of water bodies as waters are perceived as less desirable for water-related activities or as sportfish become less available for anglers. Finally, increasing water temperatures can affect industry and utilities as the thermal capacity is reduced, making the water less effective for cooling purposes. Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. Eutrophication, the enrichment of a water body with excess nutrients, has plagued the bay for decades and has led to extensive restoration efforts throughout the bay watershed. The warming of stream water can exacerbate eutrophication through increased release of nutrients from in-stream sediments, so understanding changes in stream-water temperature throughout the bay watershed is critical to resource managers seeking to restore the bay ecosystem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses indicators that “represent the state or trend of certain environmental or societal conditions … to track and better understand the effects of changes in the Earth’s climate” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Updates to these indicators are published biennially by the EPA. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the EPA, has completed analyses of air- and stream-water-temperature trends in the Chesapeake Bay region to be included as an indicator in a future release of the EPA report.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2007

USGS Tampa Bay Pilot Study

Many of the nation's estuaries have been environmentally stressed since the turn of the 20th century and will continue to be impacted in the future. Tampa Bay, one the Gulf of Mexico's largest estuaries, exemplifies the threats that our estuaries face (EPA Report 2001, Tampa Bay Estuary Program-Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (TBEP-CCMP)). More than 2 million people live in the Tampa Bay watershed, and the population constitutes to grow. Demand for freshwater resources, conversion of undeveloped areas to resident and industrial uses, increases in storm-water runoff, and increased air pollution from urban and industrial sources are some of the known human activities that impact Tampa Bay. Beginning on 2001, additional anthropogenic modifications began in Tampa Bat including construction of an underwater gas pipeline and a desalinization plant, expansion of existing ports, and increased freshwater withdrawal from three major tributaries to the bay. In January of 2001, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) and its partners identifies a critical need for participation from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in providing multidisciplinary expertise and a regional-scale, integrated science approach to address complex scientific research issue and critical scientific information gaps that are necessary for continued restoration and preservation of Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay stakeholders identified several critical science gaps for which USGS expertise was needed (Yates et al. 2001). These critical science gaps fall under four topical categories (or system components): 1) water and sediment quality, 2) hydrodynamics, 3) geology and geomorphology, and 4) ecosystem structure and function. Scientists and resource managers participating in Tampa Bay studies recognize that it is no longer sufficient to simply examine each of these estuarine system components individually, Rather, the interrelation among system components must be understood to develop conceptual and predictive modeling tools for effective ecosystem adaptive management. As a multidisciplinary organization, the USGS possesses the capability of developing and coordinating an integrated science strategy for estuarine research founded on partnerships and collaborative efforts, multidisciplinary teams of scientists, and integrated field work, data analysis and interpretation, and product development. The primary role of the USGS in Tamps Bay research was defined with our partners based upon this capability to address estuarine issues using an integrated science approach with a regional perspective and within a national context to complement the numerous ongoing scien efforts by state and local agencies that address local issues within Tamp Bay. Six primary components of the USGS Tamp Bay Study address critical gaps within each of the the four estuarine system components and focus on: 1.) Examining how natural and man-made physical changes affect ecosystem health through mapping and modeling. 2.) Identifying sources and quality of groundwater, surface water, and sediment, 3.) Identifying sources and quality of groundwater, surface water, and sediment, 4.) Assessing the natural and man-made changes affecting wetland health and restoration, 5.) Identifying and measuring the impact of urbanization on seafloor habitats, Providing a web-based digital information management system of information for scientists and the public, including a system that supports the work of those officials who must make decisions that affect the state of the bay. The Tampa Bay Study is in its sixth year and will continue through September 2007. This paper presents a non-inclusive summary of key findings associated with the six primary project components listed above. Component 4 (above) is described in detail in the following chapter 13. More information on the Tampa Bay Study is available from our on-line digital information system for the Tampa Bay Study at http://gulfsci.usgs.gov.

Florida↗
USGS2008

Methods and sources of data used to develop selected water-quality indicators for streams and ground water for EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment: Science report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was one of numerous governmental agencies, private organizations, and the academic community that provided data and interpretations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report . This report documents the sources of data and methods used to develop selected water–quality indicators for the 2007 edition of the report compiled by USEPA. Stream and ground–water–quality data collected nationally in a consistent manner as part of the USGS’s National Water–Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) were provided for several water–quality indicators, including Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds; Pesticides in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds; and Nitrate and Pesticides in Shallow Ground Water in Agricultural Watersheds . In addition, the USGS provided nitrate (nitrate plus nitrite) and phosphorus riverine load estimates calculated from water–quality and streamflow data collected as part of its National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) and its Federal–State Cooperative Program for the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Discharge from Large Rivers indicator.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2026

Spatio-temporal modeling for assessing geoenergy resources: A workflow applied to gas in place variation in coal beds

The ability to estimate spatio-temporal changes in hydrocarbon reservoir properties and energy resources within pore volumes is essential for optimizing production, reservoir management, geologic energy storage, and safety in underground mining operations. In coal seams, predicting remaining methane gas-in-place (GIP) is critical for quantifying producible gas and improving mine safety and productivity through effective ventilation planning. Although such changes are commonly evaluated using physics-based numerical simulation models, these approaches often require extensive data, calibration effort, and time. This study presents a spatio-temporal geostatistical modeling approach that bridges the gap between purely spatial models and full numerical simulations. The method is applied to a case study of coal seam degasification in the Mary Lee coal group, Black Warrior Basin, Alabama, USA, to estimate GIP evolution over time within a selected mining district. The analysis uses published data from prior natural gas production history-matching of degasification using vertical wells. Empirical spatial and temporal statistics were calculated for reservoir pressure and water saturation, and spatio-temporal variogram models were fitted to experimental variograms. These models provided the structural basis for spatio-temporal kriging, integrated with spatial estimates of time-invariant parameters (porosity, density, and thickness) to estimate GIP. This approach enabled estimation of GIP changes over time, including periods without data. Boxplots of GIP estimates indicated systematic depletion and decreasing spatial variability, reflecting the impacts of degasification. Comparison with cumulative gas production from empirical well records showed approximately 85% agreement based on a relative similarity metric. Spatio-temporal GIP estimates were also used to estimate methane emissions to longwall ventilation systems and compared with reported emissions from the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, showing similar distributions (≈80%) given data limitations. Overall, this integrated modeling approach provides time-dependent GIP estimates with broader implications for resource assessment applications.

Alabama↗
USGS2022

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗
USGS2021

Measuring coastal acidification using in situ sensors in the National Estuary Program

Estuaries and coastal areas are highly vulnerable to the impacts of acidification on shellfish, coral reefs, fisheries, and the commercial and recreational industries that they support. Yet, little is known about the extent of this vulnerability and the estuary-specific drivers that contribute to acidification, such as nutrient enrichment from stormwater, agriculture and wastewater discharges, upwelling of CO 2 -rich seawater, elevated atmospheric CO 2 from urban and agricultural activities, benthic and marsh-driven processes, and alkalinity and carbon content of freshwater flows. Comprehensive, high resolution monitoring data are needed at varying spatial and temporal scales to provide actionable information tailored to each estuary. Because carbonate chemistry in the coastal environment can be affected by nutrient dynamics, understanding how nutrient inputs exacerbate acidification impacts is essential for the formulation of estuary-specific actions.

Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware. Florid↗
USGS2019

Determination of study reporting limits for pesticide constituent data for the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project, 2004–2018—Part 1: National Water Quality Schedules 2003, 2032, or 2033, and 2060

The California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP) is a long-term cooperative project designed to assess the quality of groundwater resources used for public and domestic drinking water supplies in the State of California, to monitor and evaluate changes to that quality, to investigate the human and natural factors controlling water quality, and to improve the availability of comprehensive groundwater quality data and information. Between May 18, 2004, and May 3, 2018, the GAMA-PBP collected 3001 groundwater samples for analysis of pesticide constituents by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL)(note that ‘pesticide constituents’ includes parent compounds and degradates). Of these samples, 2994 were analyzed for pesticide constituents on schedules 2003, 2032, or 2033 (65 to 84 constituents), and 840 were analyzed for pesticide constituents on schedule 2060 (58 constituents). The original dataset reported by the NWQL to the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database contained a total of 2,688 detections of 78 pesticide constituents and 253,825 non-detections. In this original dataset, 33 percent of the 3,001 samples analyzed had reported detections of one or more pesticide constituents. This report describes the GAMA-PBP data-quality objectives for pesticide data, the procedures used to establish study reporting limits, and use of those reporting limits to censor the data from the NWQL so that the final data published by the GAMA-PBP meet these data-quality objectives. The final GAMA-PBP dataset for samples collected from May 2004 to May 2018, after censoring, had a total of 1,632 detections of 37 pesticide constituents. In the final GAMA-PBP dataset, 25 percent of the 3,001 samples analyzed had detections of one or more pesticide constituents. The presence of pesticides in groundwater is commonly evaluated by calculating detection frequencies. Detection frequencies for pesticides are sensitive to detection limits and method performance for concentrations near those limits; therefore, the two primary data quality issues addressed in the GAMA-PBP data-quality objectives for pesticides are (1) establishing criteria for classifying data from the laboratory as detections or non-detections for the purpose of data reporting by the project and (2) accounting for changes in analytical methods or method performance over time. The GAMA-PBP addresses these issues by developing study reporting limits that are used as the boundary between detections and non-detections for the reporting of GAMA-PBP results. These reporting limits are defined from method detection limits (MDLs) provided by the NWQL, unless examination of results from laboratory set blanks (LSBs) and GAMA-PBP field blanks indicates that a higher concentration censoring limit is warranted. The GAMA-PBP selected the MDL as the primary choice for defining study reporting limits for consistency with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for reporting detections of pesticides and other organic constituents. A five-step procedure is used to develop study reporting limits and censor the GAMA-PBP dataset accordingly. The effect of the censoring at each step is described to provide information about the relative effect of each step on the overall censoring of the dataset. Steps 1 and 2 can be implemented at the time the data are received, whereas steps 3−5 require information accumulated over an extended period. Step 1: Reject results that were most likely the result of specific contamination instances attributable to unusual field or laboratory conditions during sample collection or processing. Two such instances were identified, leading to rejection of 25 detections, which were assigned a data-quality indicator code of “Q” for “reviewed and rejected” in the NWIS database. Step 2: Use the NWQL MDLs in effect at the time each sample was analyzed as the reporting limit. A total of 506 detections were censored on this basis. Step 3: Use the maximum MDL established by the NWQL during July 2004–August 2018 (MDLmax) as the reporting limit. The rationale for using the MDLmax as the reporting limit is based primarily on the observation that the concentrations of MDLs generally increased over time. A total of 438 detections were censored on this basis. Step 4: Use the LSBs to identify periods of greater potential laboratory contamination bias and define raised reporting limits to be used during those periods. These periods were defined by using a moving average detection frequency approach. For consistency with the NWQL procedures for defining raised reporting limits on the basis of detections in LSBs, the raised reporting limits were defined as equal to three times the highest concentration measured in an LSB during the period. A total of 25 detections in groundwater samples analyzed during periods of increased laboratory contamination bias were censored. Step 5: Use the LSBs and field blanks to identify potential contamination bias from field or laboratory processes outside of the time periods identified in step 4. The NWQL protocols were used to define the MDLs from blanks analyzed outside of the periods identified in step 4. If an MDL defined from blanks was greater than the MDLmax, the MDL defined from blanks was used to censor the data. One constituent had a study reporting limit defined on this basis, and a total of 62 detections in groundwater samples were censored. As of 2019, the USGS NWIS database does not have the capability to store both the original value reported by the NWQL and the final value published by the GAMA-PBP that reflects application of the quality-control censoring described in this report. In the interim, while this capability is developed, the 1,031 results censored in steps 2−5 are blocked from public release in NWIS, and the GAMA-PBP has published the original and final values in a USGS data release accompanying this report. The entire GAMA-PBP final dataset for pesticide constituents on schedules 2003, 2032, or 2033, or on schedule 2060 is publicly available in that USGS data release, through the USGS GAMA-PBP public web portal, and through the California State Water Resources Control Board GAMA public groundwater information system.

California↗
USGS2024

Dissolved arsenic concentrations in surface waters within the upper portions of the Klamath River Basin, Oregon and California

Arsenic toxicity is an environmental health problem. Levels of arsenic in surface waters at some locations in the Klamath River Basin in southern Oregon and northern California can exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for drinking water. There are both anthropogenic and natural sources of arsenic. The Klamath River Basin consists primarily of volcanic deposits and contains an underground geothermal system with hot springs and warm water wells, all known natural sources of arsenic. Anthropogenic sources of arsenic are related to the agricultural use of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Surface water arsenic levels can also be affected by fertilizer amendments, evaporative concentration, oxygen-level depletion, and various geochemical transformations that can increase arsenic mobilization. In this study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation, dissolved concentrations of arsenic, copper, and lead were measured in surface waters at 39 unique sites within the upper portions of the Klamath River Basin between 2018 and 2022. In every year, except 2022, sites were sampled four times between April and November. Surface-water arsenic concentrations varied up to four-orders of magnitude among sites. Median arsenic concentration was lowest at Cherry Creek (0.03 micrograms per liter [μg/L]) and highest at Wood Kimball Spring (36.7 μg/L), two sites located north of Upper Klamath Lake. The highest arsenic concentrations (17.4±4.9 μg/L, n =3) were found in drain sites (defined here as a waterbody returning used irrigation water) while the lowest arsenic concentrations were found in an artesian well (0.8 μg/L, n =1). The elevated arsenic concentrations of the drain sites suggest that arsenic might be concentrated or mobilized by agricultural activities, water re-use practices, and (or) by geochemical processes occurring around water stored in drains (that is, in the water column and across sediment water boundaries). A source of arsenic in drain water in the Klamath Strait Drain area includes water used for irrigation originating from Ady Canal. Other potential sources include groundwater, geothermal water, and local soils and sediments. Seasonal differences in surface-water arsenic concentrations were detected at 13 sites, 10 of which had higher arsenic concentrations in summer than in either spring or fall. The sites sampled around Upper Klamath Lake, the impounded rivers, one of the two canal sites, and 5 of the 14 river sites had higher surface-water arsenic concentrations in the summer than in either spring or fall. Surface-water arsenic concentrations from groundwater sources (that is, springs and in the artesian well) did not vary significantly among seasons (p-values greater than 0.1). Median surface-water concentrations of copper and lead ranged from 0.03 to 3.7 μg/L, and from 0.013 to 0.175 μg/L ( n =2–18), respectively. Dissolved concentrations of both metals were below acute toxicity endpoints reported by the EPA for freshwater animals. Surface-water arsenic concentrations varied independently from corresponding changes in surface-water lead or copper concentrations. However, arsenic concentrations measured in bed-sediment samples collected from a subset of sites located north of Upper Klamath Lake correlated strongly and significantly with the corresponding sedimentary lead concentrations ( p =0.015). Aqueous arsenic speciation measured in a subset of sites in 2019 and 2022 showed that all the arsenic existed as arsenic (V), the most oxidized arsenic species, and presumably, the least toxic. The highest proportions of arsenite (As(III)), the presumably most toxic arsenic species, relative to total arsenic concentrations were found at drain sites. Our assessment of dissolved arsenic concentrations in various surface-water bodies in the Upper Klamath River Basin reveals geographical areas of consistently low (below 2.1 μg/L), moderate (below 10 μg/L) and high (above 10 μg/L) surface-water arsenic concentrations. South of Upper Klamath Lake, surface-water arsenic concentrations were consistently higher than 20 μg/L at two drain sites located in an area of predominant agricultural land use with extensive water re-use practices. North of Upper Klamath Lake, surface-water arsenic concentrations greater than 20 μg/L were consistently measured at sites with limited nearby agricultural activities, suggesting a geogenic source. The consistently high arsenic levels from the Wood River at Jackson F. Kimball State Park, Fort Creek, and Crooked Creek, which are sites located at or near headwater spring sources, suggest a natural background source of arsenic. Water flowing downstream from this area could be a potential source of arsenic to Upper Klamath Lake and the Upper Klamath River.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2017

Evaluation and use of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Watersheds Needs Survey data to quantify nutrient loads to surface water, 1978–2012

Changes in municipal and industrial point-source discharges over time have been an important factor affecting nutrient trends in many of the Nation’s streams and rivers. This report documents how three U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national datasets—the Permit Compliance System, the Integrated Compliance Information System, and the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey—were evaluated for use in the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment project to assess the causes of nutrient trends. This report also describes how a database of total nitrogen load and total phosphorous load was generated for select wastewater treatment facilities in the United States based on information reported in the EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. Nutrient loads were calculated for the years 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 based on average nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations for reported treatment levels and on annual reported flow values. The EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), which monitor point-source facility discharges, together are the Nation’s most spatially comprehensive dataset for nutrients released to surface waters. However, datasets for many individual facilities are incomplete, the PCS/ICIS historical data date back only to 1989, and historical data are available for only a limited number of facilities. Additionally, inconsistencies in facility reporting make it difficult to track or identify changes in nutrient discharges over time. Previous efforts made by the U.S. Geological Survey to “fill in” gaps in the PCS/ICIS data were based on statistical methods—missing data were filled in through the use of a statistical model based on the Standard Industrial Classification code, size, and flow class of the facility and on seasonal nutrient discharges of similar facilities. This approach was used to estimate point-source loads for a single point in time; it was not evaluated for use in generating a consistent data series over time. Another national EPA dataset that is available is the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS), conducted every 4 years beginning 1973. The CWNS is an assessment of the capital needs of wastewater facilities to meet the water-quality goals set in the Clean Water Act. Data collected about these facilities include location and contact information for the facilities; population served; flow and treatment level of the facility; estimated capital needs to upgrade, repair, or improve facilities for water quality; and nonpoint-source best management practices. Total nitrogen and total phosphorous load calculations for each of the CWNS years were based on treatment level information and average annual outflow (in million gallons per day) from each of the facilities that had reported it. Treatment levels categories (such as Primary, Secondary, or Advanced) were substituted with average total nitrogen and total phosphorous concentrations for each treatment level based on those reported in literature. The CWNS dataset, like the PCS/ICIS dataset, has years where facilities did not report either a treatment level or an annual average outflow, or both. To fill in the data gaps, simple linear assumptions were made based on each facility’s responses to the survey in years bracketing the data gap or immediately before or after the data gap if open ended. Treatment level and flow data unique to each facility were used to complete the CWNS dataset for that facility.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2019

Accuracy of methods for reporting inorganic element concentrations and radioactivity in oil and gas wastewaters from the Appalachian Basin, U.S. based on an inter-laboratory comparison.

Accurate and precise analyses of oil and gas (O&G) wastewaters and solids ( e.g. , sediments and sludge) are important for the regulatory monitoring of O&G development and tracing potential O&G contamination in the environment. In this study, 15 laboratories participated in an inter-laboratory comparison on the chemical characterization of three O&G wastewaters from the Appalachian Basin and four solids impacted by O&G development, with the goal of evaluating the quality of data and the accuracy of measurements for various analytes of concern. Using a variety of different methods, analytes in the wastewaters with high concentrations ( i.e. , >5 mg L −1 ) were easily detectable with relatively high accuracy, often within ±10% of the most probable value (MPV). In contrast, often less than 7 of the 15 labs were able to report detectable trace metal(loid) concentrations ( i.e. , Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, and Pb) with accuracies of approximately ±40%. Despite most labs using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) with low instrument detection capabilities for trace metal analyses, large dilution factors during sample preparation and low trace metal concentrations in the wastewaters limited the number of quantifiable determinations and likely influenced analytical accuracy. In contrast, all the labs measuring Ra in the wastewaters were able to report detectable concentrations using a variety of methods including gamma spectroscopy and wet chemical approaches following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard methods. However, the reported radium activities were often greater than ±30% different to the MPV possibly due to calibration inconsistencies among labs, radon leakage, or failing to correct for self-attenuation. Reported radium activities in solid materials had less variability (±20% from MPV) but accuracy could likely be improved by using certified radium standards and accounting for self-attenuation that results from matrix interferences or a density difference between the calibration standard and the unknown sample. This inter-laboratory comparison illustrates that numerous methods can be used to measure major cation, minor cation, and anion concentrations in O&G wastewaters with relatively high accuracy while trace metal(loid) and radioactivity analyses in liquids may often be over ±20% different from the MPV.

Appalachian Basin↗
USGS2019

Estimating market conditions for potential entry of new sources of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR in the Permian Basin

This study attempts to determine feasible carbon dioxide (CO2) price thresholds for entry of new sources of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 for utilization in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Permian Basin. Much of the discussion about carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) has focused on the high costs of carbon capture as the major barrier to entry of new anthropogenic sources of CO2 for EOR. In addition, a recent study by Edwards and Celia (2018) suggests that the lack of a CO2 transportation network to efficiently transport CO2 from ethanol plants in the Midwest to EOR sites in the Permian Basin could be a prohibitive barrier to commercial-scale entry (without some Government assistance to help finance the construction of new CO2 pipelines), despite the costs of carbon capture from ethanol plants being relatively low. Thus, entry of additional sources of anthropogenic CO2 for use in EOR in the Permian Basin could be primarily by major carbon emitters that are located closest to the existing CO2 pipeline network that currently transports mostly natural CO2 (extracted from geologic reservoirs) to EOR sites. Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019) suggest that numerous major CO2 emitters are located within 50 km of the existing pipeline network that provides CO2 for EOR in the Permian Basin. The costs for connecting these potential sources of CO2 to the existing transportation infrastructure could be very low. Of these potential sources of anthropogenic CO2, the leading emitters are coal-fired electricity generation plants, and the sources with next-largest emissions are natural gas-fired power plants. However, the CO2 concentrations in the emission streams of these types of power plants is typically far lower than that for ethanol plants and some other industrial facilities (including natural gas processing plants), which causes the estimated capture costs (using currently available technologies) to be far higher, in general. In addition, the potential cost (per metric ton of CO2 supplied) of adding these new sources of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR in the Permian basin could be greater than expanding production of existing suppliers and developing new sources of natural CO2. On the other hand, their proximity to the existing pipeline network could allow them to be viable sources of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR in the Permian Basin, and the relative competitiveness of these sources with the existing use of natural CO2 could be further enhanced if they qualify for the recently revised 45Q tax credit (Heitkamp, 2017). The results of this study provide some estimates of the potential gaps in the costs of CO2 supply from these distinct sources, and the potential implications of the results for the market conditions that could be necessary to overcome those gaps are discussed.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2025

One hundred ninety-nine dead birds: Review of the scientific basis of ecological incident reporting requirements for pesticide registrants under Fifra § 6(A)(2)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticide use in the United States. The EPA is charged by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) with ensuring that a pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Incident reports (documentation of exposure and injury from pesticide applications) can serve as a reality check on the pesticide registration decisions made by the EPA scientists and risk managers. The EPA collects incident reports on human, domestic animal, and ecological injury. The FIFRA section 6(a)(2) rule requires the pesticide registrant (generally, the company or other entity that wishes to market the pesticide, hereafter registrant) to submit such data to the EPA. The EPA’s ecological incident category includes injuries to aquatic (fish), terrestrial (wildlife), other non-target organisms (ONT, e.g., invertebrates) and plants. Our document focuses on the fish and wildlife ecological incidents that are submitted by registrants. We critique the application of the FIFRA section 6(a)(2) rule that controls the quality and quantity of ecological incident data that the EPA receives from registrants. We conclude that the section 6(a)(2) provisions can impede the transfer of ecological incident data from registrant to the EPA. Consequently, detailed data for many fish and wildlife incidents may never reach the EPA, and policies and decisions may be formulated in the absence of these data.

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal↗
USGS2023

Analyses of regulatory water-quality data

Between 1952 and 1964, hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), was released into groundwater from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Hinkley compressor station in the Mojave Desert 80 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company has monitored groundwater near Hinkley, California, for Cr(VI) and other constituents since the late 1980s. By June 2017, more than 20,000 samples had been collected and analyzed for Cr(VI) for regulatory purposes. Most Cr(VI) samples were analyzed using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 218.6 with a laboratory reporting level (LRL) of 0.2 micrograms per liter (μg/L). Between July 2012 and June 2017, selected samples were analyzed for low-level Cr(VI) concentrations using a modified version of EPA Method 218.6 with an LRL of 0.06 μg/L. Field-blank data and duplicate samples collected during this period indicate a study reporting level (SRL) of 0.2 μg/L for most analyses and a SRL of 0.12 μg/L for low-level Cr(VI) analyses. The overall precision for Cr(VI) data analyzed by both methods at the interim regulatory Cr(VI) background concentration of 3.1 μg/L was 0.09 μg/L, or about 3 percent. Hexavalent chromium concentration trends were calculated for 564 monitoring wells for the period from July 2012 through June 2017. Upward Cr(VI) concentration trends were present in water from 102 monitoring wells throughout Hinkley and Water Valleys. Upward Cr(VI) concentration trends in water from wells near the margins of the October–December 2015 (Q4 2015) regulatory Cr(VI) plume (1) within strands of the Lockhart fault east and southeast of the Hinkley compressor station and (2) in water from shallow wells within the northern subarea were consistent with expansion of the Cr(VI) plume in these areas between 2012 and 2017. Upward Cr(VI) concentration trends were widely distributed elsewhere in Hinkley and Water Valleys outside the Q4 2015 regulatory Cr(VI) plume and were commonly associated with declining water levels. These upward trends may result from natural Cr(VI) sources, including movement of Cr(VI) containing groundwater from (1) weathered bedrock, (2) fine-textured deposits, or (3) secondarily oxidized material distributed throughout aquifer deposits. Downward Cr(VI) concentration trends were observed in 146 monitoring wells. Downward trends were largely within the Q4 2015 regulatory Cr(VI) plume and can be attributed to remediation activities downgradient from the Hinkley compressor station. Hexavalent chromium concentration trends also were calculated for 219 domestic wells from July 2012 through June 2017. Upward Cr(VI) concentration trends in 8 domestic wells and downward trends in 23 domestic wells were clustered largely within former residential areas west of the Q4 2015 regulatory Cr(VI) plume. Results of Cr(VI) trend analyses (including upward, downward, and no trend) were used with other data as part of a summative-scale analysis (chapter G) to define the extent of anthropogenic Cr(VI) and natural Cr(VI) within Hinkley and Water Valleys.

California↗
USGS1993

National water summary 1990-91: Hydrologic events and stream water quality

National Water Summary 1990-91 Hydrologic Events and Stream Water Quality was planned to complement existing Federal-State water-quality reporting to the U.S. Congress that is required by the Clean Water Act of 1972. This act, formally known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), and its amendments in 1977,1979,1980,1981,1983, and 1987, is the principal basis for Federal-State cooperation on maintaining and reporting on water quality in the United States. Under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, the States must designate uses for waterbodies, biennially assess whether the waterbodies meet designated uses, and report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which in turn summarizes the findings of the State assessments in a biennial National Water Quality Inventory report to the Congress. This volume of the National Water Summary uses a nationally consistent data base and methods of statistical analysis to document stream water quality in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Western Pacific Islands. As a basis for preparation of this report, the U.S. Geological Survey (uses) created a data base of waterquality data from about 2,900 stream water-quality monitoring stations in the United States (Lanfear, 1993). These data, which were extracted primarily from the uses National Water Information System (NWIS) and supplemented with data from the EPA national data base known as STORET, consisted mostly of water-chemistry and physical-sediment data. About 1,400 of these stations met a criterion, used in this volume for trends analysis of data, of having a period of record that began before water year 1980. (A water year is the period from October 1 through September 30 and is identified by the calendar year at the end of the period.) Inasmuch as the determination of trends requires about 10 years of data, few biological data were suitable for trends analysis because biological indicators of water quality were not being collected extensively by water year 1980. Also, because of the lack of long-term data, an assessment of the water quality of lakes and reservoirs is not included in this National Water Summary . Constituent and waterproperty data were selected from this data base and analyzed with statistical techniques that have been used extensively by the uses to summarize conditions and trends in water quality. (Throughout the remainder of this article, the term "constituent" is used also to represent water properties, such as pH and alkalinity.) Selected results from this analysis are presented graphically, both by State and nationally, in this volume. The data base created for preparation of this volume and the resulting nationally consistent statistical analysis of these data provide a unique opportunity to compare and contrast stream water-quality conditions and trends nationally and State by State. Because of the complexity of water quality and the natural seasonal and diurnal variations in the concentrations of waterquality constituents, the determination of trends in water quality requires a relatively long period of record. Trends in constituent concentrations in the State summaries in this volume were calculated for one or more of four periods water years 1970-89,1975-89,1980- 89, and 1982-89. Unfortunately, few water-quality monitoring stations have periods of record of more than 10 or 15 years, and therefore most analyses in the State summaries were done for 8- or 10-year periods. Although interest in water quality has continued to heighten since passage of the Clean Water Act, funds for support of data-collection programs are limited and data records of many of the constituents now of current concern, especially organic constituents, do not exist or are less than 10-years long; consequently only a modest number of organic constituents are presented in this volume. Discussion of conditions and trends in water quality in this National Water Summary also draw upon information about land use, population, water use, application of agricultural chemicals in rural areas, the siting of industrial facilities, and other ancillary information. Because the results of analysis of a restricted number of constituents are presented in this volume, State 305(b) reports also are cited in the discussion of water quality in each State. The following discussion is an overview of the three parts of this 1990-91 National Water Summary - "Hydrologic Conditions and Water-Related Events, Water Years 1990-91," "Hydrologic Perspectives on Water Issues," and "State Summaries of Stream Water Quality."

Water Supply Paper↗
USGS2021

Comparison of detection limits estimated using single- and multi-concentration spike-based and blank-based procedures

Spike- and blank-based procedures were applied to estimate the detection limits (DLs) for example analytes from inorganic and organic methods for water samples to compare with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Method Detection Limit (MDL) procedures (revisions 1.11 and 2.0). The multi-concentration spike-based procedures ASTM Within-laboratory Critical Level (DQCALC) and EPA's Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level were compared in one application, with DQCALC further applied to many methods. The blank-based DLs, MDL b99 (99th percentile) or MDL bY (= mean blank concentration + s × t ), estimated using large numbers (>100) of blank samples often provide DLs that better approach or achieve the desired ≤1% false positive risk level compared to spike-based DLs. For primarily organic methods that do not provide many uncensored blank results, spike-based DQCALC or MDL rev. 2.0 are needed to simulate the blank distribution and estimate the DL. DQCALC is especially useful for estimating DLs for multi-analyte methods having very different analyte response characteristics. Time series plots of DLs estimated using different procedures reveal that DLs are dependent on the applied procedure, should not be expected to be static over time, and seem best viewed as falling over a range versus being a single value. Use of both blank- and spike-based DL procedures help inform this DL range. Data reporting conventions that censor data at a threshold and report “less than” that threshold concentration as the reporting level have unknown and potentially high false negative risk. The U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory's Laboratory Reporting Level (LRL) convention (applied primarily to organic methods) attempts to simultaneously minimize both the false positive and false negative risk when <LRL is reported and data between DL and the higher LRL are allowed to be reported.

Talanta↗