Geology topics

Christopher J. Churchill

Publications and source records attributed to Christopher J. Churchill.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Insights and strategic opportunities from the USGS 2024 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Interagency Workshop

Introduction In 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published Circular 1490 titled, “Integrated Science for the Study of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Environment: A Strategic Science Vision for the U.S. Geological Survey” (Tokranov and others, 2021). Circular 1490 was created to be a resource for USGS scientists prioritizing and planning research related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and to be a guide for developing partnerships with other scientists, State and Federal agencies, and stakeholders engaged in PFAS research and management and mitigation of the environmental and human-health effects of PFAS. This USGS PFAS Strategic Science Vision document was intended to be the foundation for a “living strategic vision,” periodically providing updates on the state of USGS PFAS research, emerging PFAS data gaps and needs, and progress on interagency and stakeholder PFAS partnerships and priorities. To meet this objective, the USGS planned to host an Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop every 2–3 years. During September 10–12, 2024, the USGS hosted the first Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop in Reston, Virginia. The Workshop brought together experts from other Federal agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense [Air Force, Army]), State agencies (Washington Fish and Wildlife, Virginia Department of Transportation), and academia (Harvard University, University of Maryland) to address key challenges relating to the measurement and modeling of PFAS and the implications for environmental health. Participants engaged in in-depth discussions centered around six pivotal topics related to PFAS: (1) sampling protocols, methods and interpretation; (2) environmental sources, source apportionment, and occurrence; (3) environmental fate and transport; (4) human and wildlife exposure routes and risk; (5) bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification; and (6) ecotoxicology and effects. Each topic had three breakout sessions. A recurrent theme of workshop discussions was how data on a nationwide scale for PFAS occurrence in various environmental matrices, including air, water, food crops, biota, soil, and streambed sediment could help to advance scientific understanding. Participants noted significant geospatial data gaps, particularly in the midwestern and southern United States and the Pacific Northwest. PFAS data collection tends to be more robust along the eastern seaboard and in California. Participants stressed how enhancing the integration of large and small datasets across various agencies could help to support national scale understanding of PFAS. To address these gaps, attendees suggested leveraging datasets from Federal entities like the USGS and the U.S. Department of Defense, State agencies, and municipal utility services to develop predictive contaminant detection and transport models. Improved coordination between water quality programs and USGS research could help to facilitate access to valuable data, leading to comprehensive databases that inform PFAS point (wastewater treatment plants and landfills) and nonpoint (runoff from land, atmospheric deposition, food packaging) sources, environmental transport mechanisms, environmental detection and concentrations, potential exposure routes, and health effects on different biota, including humans. A specific request was made to develop a map demarking the depth of modern (1953 or later) groundwater, which is susceptible to surface-derived anthropogenic (that is, human-made) contamination, based on tritium-age dating. Emphasis was placed on incorporation of hydrology, groundwater flow paths, groundwater–surface water interactions, and landscape factors in predictive statistical models as a step to improve contaminant source identification and tracking. Molecular fingerprinting approaches garnered attention as techniques to link specific PFAS mixtures detected in a sample to environmental sources and levels in biota (Dávila-Santiago and others, 2022). Integrating data from abiotic (that is, water, soil, and air) and biotic (that is, living organisms) systems identified as a research opportunity. For example, understanding the composition of soils and sediments, which include a mixture of mineral, plant, and animal components, could advance understanding of exposure pathways. The discussions highlighted opportunities to explore and understand the potential redistribution and biotic exposures of PFAS from biosolid and wastewater treatment plant effluent land application practices, in addition to atmospheric releases and discharges from landfill and wastewater treatment plants. Participants identified research gaps surrounding how these sources may contribute to contamination and may affect surrounding ecosystems, including a better definition of anthropogenic background concentrations. Moving forward, the collection of co-occurrence data was noted as a means to improve understanding of complex mixtures and to leverage companion modeling efforts focused on areas with high and low contamination levels to identify areas of concern and unaffected resources. Participants emphasized how centralized USGS databases and the establishment of sample-metadata archives can help to ensure that samples are preserved and accessible for future research. In conclusion, the workshop participants identified opportunities to bridge data gaps and improve measurement techniques, modeling frameworks, databases, and communication, to enhance the understanding of PFAS and their effects on environmental and human health. Upon completion of the workshop, participants indicated an interest in developing strategic data collection, modeling, and analytical approaches to address these challenges.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Mississippi River Science Forum—Summary of data and science needs and next steps

The U.S. Geological Survey hosted a Mississippi River Science Forum with Federal agencies; Tribal, State, and local governments located in States that border the Mississippi River; academia; and other interested stakeholders. The purpose of the forum was to share current (2023) science; identify data gaps and areas of concern; and to prioritize next steps needed to advance the goals of improving water quality, restoring habitat and natural systems, improving navigation, eliminating aquatic invasive species, and building local resilience to natural disasters along the Mississippi River. The forum was a directive for the U.S. Geological Survey in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (Public Law 117—103, 136 Stat. 49). Participants and stakeholders that attended the Mississippi River Science Forum indicated the following. A Mississippi River Science Committee could bring together the voices of all stakeholders, including Federal agencies; State, local, and Tribal governments; academia; nongovernmental organizations; business and industry; and other interested parties. This committee would also work with (but not replace) Mississippi River Basin entities already in place and establish effective communication to identify and address Basin-wide management needs and to develop holistic solutions for those needs. A Mississippi River science plan could expand on the science and data gaps identified by the Forum. This plan could guide data collection and help resource managers develop and implement restoration initiatives within the Basin, recognizing that addressing these needs will require substantial resources. The science committee, working with other entities in the basin, should develop data standards for the Mississippi River Basin that allow stakeholders to utilize comparable data to address their needs. These standards would include data findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. This report highlights data gaps and areas of concern discussed during the forum, and it identifies needs to advance the goals of improving water quality, restoring habitat and natural systems, improving navigation, eliminating aquatic invasive species, and building local resilience to natural disasters with specific emphasis on data collection and measurement, and scientific investigation. The report also summarizes stakeholder input and feedback and outlines next steps identified by forum participants.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2023

BioLake: A first assessment of lake temperature-derived bioclimatic predictors for aquatic invasive species

Aquatic invasive species (AIS) present major ecological and economic challenges globally, endangering ecosystems and human livelihoods. Managers and policy makers thus need tools to predict invasion risk and prioritize species and areas of concern, and they often use native range climate matching to determine whether a species could persist in a new location. However, climate matching for AIS often relies on air temperature rather than water temperature due to a lack of global water temperature data layers, and predictive power of models is seldom evaluated. We developed 12 global lake (water) temperature-derived “BioLake” bioclimatic layers for distribution modeling of aquatic species and compared “climatch” climate matching predictions (from climatchR package) from BioLake with those based on BioClim temperature layers and with a null model. We did this for 73 established AIS in the United States, training the models on their ranges outside of the United States and Canada. Models using either set of climate layers outperformed the null expectation by a similar (but modest) amount on average, but some species were occasionally found in locations with low climatch scores. Mean US climatch scores were higher for most species when using air temperature. Including additional climate layers in models reduced mean climatch scores, indicating that commonly used climatch score thresholds are not absolute but can be context specific and may require calibration based upon climate data used. Although finer resolution global lake temperature data would likely improve predictions, our BioLake layers provide a starting point for aquatic species distribution modeling. Climate matching was most effective for some species that originated at low latitudes or had small ranges. Climatch scores remain useful but limited for predicting AIS risk, perhaps because current ranges seldom fully reflect climatic tolerances (fundamental niches). Managers could consider climate matching as one of a suite of tools that can be used in AIS prioritization.

Ecosphere↗

USGS2020

Compounds of emerging concern detected in water samples from potable water and wastewater treatment plants and detected in water and bed-sediment samples from sites on the Trinity River, Dallas, Texas, 2009–13

The population in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area in northern Texas is rapidly growing, resulting in a rapid increase in the demand for potable water and an increase in the discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluent. An assessment of compounds of emerging concern (CECs) in samples collected at potable water and wastewater treatment plants in Dallas and downstream from Dallas in the Trinity River was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the City of Dallas, Dallas Water Utilities. CECs are synthetic or naturally occurring chemicals that are not commonly monitored in the environment but can enter the environment and cause known or suspected adverse ecological or human health effects. CECs can enter the environment through nonpoint sources (for example, runoff) and point sources (for example, concentrated animal feeding operations and treated-effluent discharge from wastewater treatment plants), which can increase concentrations of CECs especially in highly populated areas. CECs include pharmaceuticals (prescription and nonprescription), steroidal hormones, stanols, sterols, detergents and detergent metabolites (hereinafter referred to as “detergents”), personal-use products, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), flame retardants, plasticizers, and other organic compounds used in everyday domestic, agricultural, and industrial applications. The release of CECs to the environment went largely unrecognized until relatively recently. Increased loading of certain CECs to the environment, combined with advancements in laboratory analysis methods that resulted in appreciably lower detection levels, brought greater attention to the release of CECs. In addition, synthesis of new chemicals or changes in use and disposal of existing chemicals can create new sources of CECs. Some CECs are endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), which can elicit adverse effects on development, behavior, and reproduction of wildlife and can cause dysfunction of human and wildlife endocrine (hormone) systems. Results of studies in the United States and Europe indicate that CECs, their metabolites, and industrial, agricultural, and household wastewater products are present in the aquatic environment, water treatment plants, and septic systems. CECs, especially pharmaceuticals, are of interest because of their persistence, widespread use, and potential to cause adverse effects in humans and nontargeted organisms. There is also concern that some CECs and EDCs resist degradation of water treatment processes at potable water treatment plants (PWTPs) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and that treated-effluent discharge could contain compounds that negatively affect biota living in receiving waters. Therefore, CECs and EDCs are more likely to be detected in environmental samples collected near areas of high population density where treated effluent from WWTPs can contribute substantially to receiving waters. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Dallas, Dallas Water Utilities, evaluated the occurrence and concentrations of selected CECs in samples collected at PWTPs and WWTPs in Dallas and downstream from the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area in the Trinity River, Texas, from August 2009 to December 2013. Water samples were collected at three PWTP sites, two WWTP sites, and five study sites on the Trinity River; all sites where samples were collected were in or downstream from Dallas. These water samples were analyzed for 120 CECs, including human-health pharmaceuticals (prescription and nonprescription), antibiotics, steroidal hormones, stanols, sterols, detergents, personal-use products (flavors and fragrances), pesticides and repellents, industrial wastewater compounds, disinfection compounds, PAHs, flame retardants, and plasticizers. Additionally, bed-sediment samples were collected at each of the five Trinity River sites. The bed-sediment samples were analyzed for 57 CECs. In general, the water treatment processes at PWTPs and WWTPs were effective at reducing detections and concentrations of CECs to undetectable levels or transforming the compounds into degradates that were not analyzed. There were 14 and 73 CECs detected in raw water and in untreated-influent water at PWTPs and WWTPs, respectively. Of these, 11 of the 14 CECs detected in raw-water samples and 44 of the 73 CECs detected in untreated-influent samples were not detected in finished water or in treated-effluent water samples, respectively, indicating that these compounds were removed or degraded to compounds that were not analyzed. Some CECs, however, are resistant to degradation and were detected in untreated and treated water at PWTPs and at WWTPs. The three CECs detected at PWTPs in raw-water and finished-water samples were tris(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, benzophenone, and methyl salicylate. At WWTPs, 29 CECs were detected, including carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole, 4-androstene-3,17- dione , 3-beta-coprostanol, acetyl-hexamethyl-tetrahydronaphthalene (AHTN), hexahydro-hexamethyl-cyclopenta-benzopyran (HHCB), 1,4-dichlorobenzene, tribromomethane, benzophenone, and tris(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, in untreated and treated water, indicating that treatment processes likely did not remove or degrade these compounds. Of the 23 CECs detected in stream-water samples collected at 5 sites on the Trinity River in or near Dallas, 10 CECs (carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole, caffeine, 3-beta-coprostanol, cholesterol, HHCB, benzophenone, triethyl citrate, tributyl phosphate, and tris(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate) were detected at all 5 sites. The 10 CECs detected in water samples collected at all 5 sites on the Trinity River were also detected in treated-effluent water at WWTPs. Eleven of the 57 targeted CECs were detected in bed-sediment samples collected at study sites on the Trinity River. Of these 11 CECs, only 2 (beta-sitosterol and cholesterol) were detected in bed-sediment samples at all 5 sites on the Trinity River. Nine of these 11 CECs were not detected in any water-column sample, likely because of the strong hydrophobic characteristics of these compounds. Results from water treatment plants indicate that the water treatment process is less effective for removing or degrading compounds that are engineered to be resistant to degradation. These results also indicate the presence of CECs and EDCs at locations upstream from PWTPs in Dallas. Results from Trinity River main-stem sites indicate that some compounds are naturally attenuated during transport, but a few are persistent throughout the study reach. Many CECs and EDCs are hydrophobic and were only detected in bed sediment, indicating multiple pathways through which CECs can persist in the environment. In general, concentrations of CECs in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area were similar to those found in metropolitan areas nationwide.

Texas↗

USGS2012

USGS Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program for north Texas

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program for north Texas provides early detection and monitoring of zebra mussels ( Dreissena polymorpha ) by using a holistic suite of detection methods. The program is designed to assess zebra mussel occurrence, distribution, and densities in north Texas waters by using four approaches: (1) SCUBA diving, (2) water-sample collection with plankton tow nets (followed by laboratory analyses), (3) artificial substrates, and (4) water-quality sampling. Data collected during this type of monitoring can assist rapid response efforts and can be used to quantify the economic and ecological effects of zebra mussels in the north Texas area. Monitoring under this program began in April 2010. The presence of large zebra mussel populations often causes undesirable economic and ecological effects, including damage to water-processing infrastructure and hydroelectric powerplants (with an estimated 10-year cost of $3.1 billion), displacement of native mussels, increases in concentrations of certain species of cyanobacteria, and increases in concentrations of geosmin (an organic compound that results in taste and odor issues in water). Since no large-scale, environmentally safe eradication method has been developed for zebra mussels, it is difficult to remove established populations. Broad physicochemical adaptability, prolific reproductive capacity, and rapid dispersal methods have enabled zebra mussels, within a period of about 20 years, to establish populations under differing environmental conditions across much of the eastern part of the United States. In Texas, the presence of zebra mussels was first confirmed in April 2009 in Lake Texoma in the Red River Basin along the Texas-Oklahoma border. They were most likely introduced into Lake Texoma through overland transport from an infested water body. Since then, the presence of zebra mussels has been reported in both the Red River and Washita River arms of Lake Texoma, in Sister Grove Creek, and in Ray Roberts Lake. Water managers tasked with supplying the 6.6 million residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area must ensure that the area receives a continuous supply of water that meets both the needs of the current (2012) and the projected (doubling in number by 2050) populations. This metropolitan area depends on surface water captured in area reservoirs, including those in the Trinity River Basin, for the primary source of drinking water. The presence of an established zebra mussel population in a reservoir in the Trinity River Basin could result in increased operations and maintenance costs for water resource managers and could potentially serve as a source population leading to further expansion of this aquatic nuisance species.

Oklahoma County, Texas County↗

USGS2010

Bromide, Chloride, and Sulfate Concentrations and Loads at U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow-Gaging Stations 07331600 Red River at Denison Dam, 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, and 07336820 Red River near DeKalb, Texas, 2007-09

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Dallas Water Utilities Division, did a study to characterize bromide, chloride, and sulfate concentrations and loads at three U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations on the reach of the Red River from Denison Dam, which impounds Lake Texoma, to the U.S. Highway 259 bridge near DeKalb, Texas. Bromide, chloride, and sulfate concentrations and loads were computed for streamflow-gaging stations on the study reach of the Red River. Continuous streamflow and specific conductance data and discrete samples for bromide, chloride, sulfate, and specific conductance were collected at three main-stem streamflow-gaging stations on the Red River: 07331600 Red River at Denison Dam near Denison, Texas (Denison Dam gage), 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, Texas (Arthur City gage), and 07336820 Red River near DeKalb, Texas (DeKalb gage). At each of these streamflow-gaging stations, discrete water-quality data were collected during January 2007-February 2009; continuous water-quality data were collected during March 2007-February 2009. Two periods of high flow resulted from floods during the study; floods during June-July 2007 resulted in elevated flow during June-September 2007 and smaller floods during March-April 2008 resulted in elevated flow during March-April 2008. Bromide, chloride, and sulfate concentrations in samples collected at the three gages decreased downstream. Median bromide concentrations ranged from 0.32 milligram per liter at the Denison Dam gage to 0.19 milligram per liter at the DeKalb gage. Median chloride concentrations ranged from 176 milligrams per liter at the Denison Dam gage to 108 milligrams per liter at the DeKalb gage, less than the 300-milligrams per liter secondary maximum contaminant level established by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Median sulfate concentrations ranged from 213 milligrams per liter at the Denison Dam gage to 117 milligrams per liter at the DeKalb gage, also less than the 300-milligrams per liter secondary maximum contaminant level. Kruskal-Wallis analyses indicated statistically significant differences among bromide, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at the three gages. Regression equations to estimate bromide, chloride, and sulfate loads were developed for each of the three gages. The largest loads were estimated for a period of relatively large streamflow, June-September 2007, when about 50 percent of the load for the study period occurred at each gage. Adjusted R-squared values were largest for regression equations for the DeKalb gage, ranging from .957 for sulfate to .976 for chloride. Adjusted R-squared values for all regression equations developed to estimate loads of bromide, chloride, and sulfate at the three gages were .899 or larger.

Oklahoma, Texas↗