Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Michael Eberle

Publications and source records attributed to Michael Eberle.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2011

Adjustment of pesticide concentrations for temporal changes in analytical recovery, 1992–2010

Recovery is the proportion of a target analyte that is quantified by an analytical method and is a primary indicator of the analytical bias of a measurement. Recovery is measured by analysis of quality-control (QC) water samples that have known amounts of target analytes added ("spiked" QC samples). For pesticides, recovery is the measured amount of pesticide in the spiked QC sample expressed as a percentage of the amount spiked, ideally 100 percent. Temporal changes in recovery have the potential to adversely affect time-trend analysis of pesticide concentrations by introducing trends in apparent environmental concentrations that are caused by trends in performance of the analytical method rather than by trends in pesticide use or other environmental conditions. This report presents data and models related to the recovery of 44 pesticides and 8 pesticide degradates (hereafter referred to as "pesticides") that were selected for a national analysis of time trends in pesticide concentrations in streams. Water samples were analyzed for these pesticides from 1992 through 2010 by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Recovery was measured by analysis of pesticide-spiked QC water samples. Models of recovery, based on robust, locally weighted scatterplot smooths (lowess smooths) of matrix spikes, were developed separately for groundwater and stream-water samples. The models of recovery can be used to adjust concentrations of pesticides measured in groundwater or stream-water samples to 100 percent recovery to compensate for temporal changes in the performance (bias) of the analytical method.

Data Series↗
USGS2011

Sources and preparation of data for assessing trends in concentrations of pesticides in streams of the United States, 1992–2010

This report updates a previously published water-quality dataset of 44 commonly used pesticides and 8 pesticide degradates suitable for a national assessment of trends in pesticide concentrations in streams of the United States. Water-quality samples collected from January 1992 through September 2010 at stream-water sites of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program and the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) were compiled, reviewed, selected, and prepared for trend analysis. The principal steps in data review for trend analysis were to (1) identify analytical schedule, (2) verify sample-level coding, (3) exclude inappropriate samples or results, (4) review pesticide detections per sample, (5) review high pesticide concentrations, and (6) review the spatial and temporal extent of NAWQA pesticide data and selection of analytical methods for trend analysis. The principal steps in data preparation for trend analysis were to (1) select stream-water sites for trend analysis, (2) round concentrations to a consistent level of precision for the concentration range, (3) identify routine reporting levels used to report nondetections unaffected by matrix interference, (4) reassign the concentration value for routine nondetections to the maximum value of the long-term method detection level (maxLT-MDL), (5) adjust concentrations to compensate for temporal changes in bias of recovery of the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) analytical method, and (6) identify samples considered inappropriate for trend analysis. Samples analyzed at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) by the GCMS analytical method were the most extensive in time and space and, consequently, were selected for trend analysis. Stream-water sites with 3 or more water years of data with six or more samples per year were selected for pesticide trend analysis. The selection criteria described in the report produced a dataset of 21,988 pesticide samples at 212 stream-water sites. Only 21,144 pesticide samples, however, are considered appropriate for trend analysis.

Data Series↗
USGS2006

User's manual for the Graphical Constituent Loading Analysis System (GCLAS)

This manual describes the Graphical Constituent Loading Analysis System (GCLAS), an interactive cross-platform program for computing the mass (load) and average concentration of a constituent that is transported in stream water over a period of time. GCLAS computes loads as a function of an equal-interval streamflow time series and an equal- or unequal-interval time series of constituent concentrations. The constituent-concentration time series may be composed of measured concentrations or a combination of measured and estimated concentrations. GCLAS is not intended for use in situations where concentration data (or an appropriate surrogate) are collected infrequently or where an appreciable amount of the concentration values are censored. It is assumed that the constituent-concentration time series used by GCLAS adequately represents the true time-varying concentration. Commonly, measured constituent concentrations are collected at a frequency that is less than ideal (from a load-computation standpoint), so estimated concentrations must be inserted in the time series to better approximate the expected chemograph. GCLAS provides tools to facilitate estimation and entry of instantaneous concentrations for that purpose. Water-quality samples collected for load computation frequently are collected in a single vertical or at single point in a stream cross section. Several factors, some of which may vary as a function of time and (or) streamflow, can affect whether the sample concentrations are representative of the mean concentration in the cross section. GCLAS provides tools to aid the analyst in assessing whether concentrations in samples collected in a single vertical or at single point in a stream cross section exhibit systematic bias with respect to the mean concentrations. In cases where bias is evident, the analyst can construct coefficient relations in GCLAS to reduce or eliminate the observed bias. GCLAS can export load and concentration data in formats suitable for entry into the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Information System. GCLAS can also import and export data in formats that are compatible with various commonly used spreadsheet and statistics programs.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS1998

Quality-Assurance/Quality-Control Manual for Collection and Analysis of Water-Quality Data in the Ohio District, US Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division (WRD), requires that quality-assurance/quality-control (QA/QC) activities be included in any sampling and analysis program. Operational QA/QC procedures address local needs while incorporating national policies. Therefore, specific technical policies were established for all activities associated with water-quality project being done by the Ohio District. The policies described in this report provide Ohio District personnel, cooperating agencies, and others with a reference manual on QA/QC procedures that are followed in collecitng and analyzing water-quality samples and reporting water-quality information in the Ohio District. The project chief, project support staff, District Water-Quality Specialist, and District Laboratory Coordinator are all involved in planning and implementing QA/QC activities at the district level. The District Chief and other district-level managers provide oversight, and the Regional Water-Quality Specialist, Office of Water Quality (USGS headquarters), and the Branch of Quality Systems within the Office of Water Quality create national QA/QC polices and provide assistance to District personnel. In the literature, the quality of all measurement data is expressed in terms of precision, variability, bias, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and comparability. In the Ohio District, bias and variability will be used to describe quality-control data generated from samples in the field and laboratory. Each project chief must plan for implementation and financing of QA/QC activities necessary to achieve data-quality objectives. At least 15 percent of the total project effort must be directed toward QA/QC activities. Of this total, 5-10 percent will be used for collection and analysis of quality-control samples. This is an absolute minimum, and more may be required based on project objectives. Proper techniques must be followed in the collection and processing of surface-water, ground-water, biological, precipitation, bed-sediment, bedload, suspended-sediment, and solid-phase samples. These techniques are briefly described in this report and are extensively documented. The reference documents listed in this report will be kept by the District librarian and District Water-Quality Specialist and updated regularly so that they are available to all District staff. Proper handling and documentation before, during, and after field activities are essential to ensure the integrity of the sample and to correct erroneous reporting of data results. Field sites are to be properly identified and entered into the data base before field data-collection activities begin. During field activities, field notes are to be completed and sample bottles appropriately labeled a nd stored. After field activities, all paperwork is to be completed promptly and samples transferred to the laboratory within allowable holding times. All equipment used by District personnel for the collection and processing of water-quality samples is to be properly operated, maintained, and calibrated by project personnel. This includes equipment for onsite measurement of water-quality characteristics (temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, acidity, and turbidity) and equipment and instruments used for biological sampling. The District Water-Quality Specialist and District Laboratory Coordinator are responsible for preventive maintenance and calibration of equipment in the Ohio District laboratory. The USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Arvada, Colo., is the primary source of analytical services for most project work done by the Ohio District. Analyses done at the Ohio District laboratory are usually those that must be completed within a few hours of sample collection. Contract laboratories or other USGS laboratories are sometimes used instead of the NWQL or the Ohio District laboratory. When a contract laboratory is used, the projec

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1987

National and regional trends in water-well drilling in the United States, 1964-84

Information on national and regional water well drilling activity is important for water resource planning and management and for water related equipment marketing. A study was conducted to analyze drilling trends on the basis of data for selected years from 1964 through 1984. The study focused primarily on the years 1964 and 1980-84, but also included data from 1960. Approximately 397,000 water wells were drilled in the United States in 1984. Seven states--Florida, Texas, New York, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio--accounted for 39% of all the wells drilled in the United States in 1984. Florida led the nation in drilling activity with 45,600 new wells. The 1984 national drilling total was 2.6% > the total for 1980 (387,000) and 8.5% < the total for 1964 (434,000). However, these moderate differences do not reflect substantial year-to-year fluctuations that may have occurred during that 20-yr period. Qualitative comparisons suggest that drilling activity for a given year is closely related to the number of housing starts for that year. If so, there may have been peaks in drilling activity in 1972 and 1977-78 (corresponding to peaks in housing starts) that are not identified in this study because of a lack of available well drilling data for those years. Well drilling data for 1964 and the 1980-84 period probably represent a low to moderate level of drilling activity, and, if compared to earlier data, suggest that there has been no substantial growth or decline in the water well industry as a whole since the 1940's. (Author's abstract)

Open-File Report↗
USGS1987

Overview of surface-water quality in Ohio's coal regions

This report is designed to provide the nontechnical audience with some of the results of an 'Assessment of Water Quality in Streams Draining Coal-Producing Areas in Ohio,' by Christine L. Pfaff and others (published by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1981). The purpose of the assessment was to document the occurrence of certain chemical constituents in streams in Ohio's coal region and determine to what extent the presence of these constituents was related to mining. Ohio's most productive coal seams are associated with the Allegheny and Monongahela Formation of Pennsylvanian age. These coals were mined by underground methods very early in Ohio's history. Underground mining continues in the state today; however, surface mining now produces significantly more coal. Acid mine drainage from unreclaimed surface and underground mines has affected surface-water quality in Ohio for many years, and recently has led to establishment of reclamation programs by State and Federal agencies. In their assessment of Ohio's coal region, Pfaff and others sampled 150 sites in small watersheds underlain by the Allegheny and the Monogahela Formations. Each site represented only one of four land-use types (active-mine, unmined, abandoned-mine, or reclaimed). Statistical analysis of data from the unmined, abandoned-mine, and reclaimed sites showed that there were significant differences in pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, and concentrations of sulfate and aluminum among abandoned-mine and unmined sites. Reclaimed sites had average pH values and aluminum concentrations similar to those unmined sites. Average specific conductance and sulfate concentrations were about the same for reclaimed abandoned-mine sites, but were significantly lower at unmined sites; specific conductance and sulfate concentration, in fact, proved to be reliable indicators of basins that had been disturbed by mining. Alkalinity was significantly different for all three land uses, the highest values being found at reclaimed sites. The relationship revealed by this study may be useful in designing future water-quality sampling programs in Ohio's coal region.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1985

Effects of surface coal mining and reclamation on ground water in small watersheds in the Allegheny Plateau, Ohio

The hydrologic effects of surface coal mining in unlimited areas is difficult to predict, partly because of a lack of adequate data collected before and after mining and reclamation. In order to help provide data to assess the effects of surface mining on the hydrology of small basins in the coal fields of the eastern United States, the U.S. Bureau of Mines sponsored a comprehensive hydrologic study at three sites in the Ohio part of the Eastern Coal Province. These sites are within the unqlaciated part of the Allegheny Plateau, and are representative of similar coal-producing areas in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The U.S. Geological Survey was responsible for the ground-water phase of the study. The aquifer system at each watershed consisted of two localized perched aquifers (top and middle) above a deeper, more regional aquifer. The premining top aquifer was destroyed by mining in each case, and was replaced by spoils during reclamation. The spoils formed new top aquifers that were slowly becoming resaturated at the end of the study period. Water levels in the aquifers were about the same after reclamation as before mining, although levels rose in a few places. It appears that the underclay at the base of the new top aquifers at all three sites prevents significant downward leakage from the top aquifers to lower except in places where the layer may have been damaged during mining. Water in the top aquifers is a calcium sulfate type, whereas calcium bicarbonate type water predominated before mining. The median specific conductance of water in the new top aquifers was about 5 times greater than that of the original top aquifers in two of the watersheds, and 1 1/2 times the level of the original top aquifers in the third. Concentrations of dissolved sulfate, iron, and manganese in the top aquifers before mining generally did not exceed U.S. and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water limits, but generally exceeded these limits after reclamation. Water-quality changes in the middle aquifers were minor by comparison. Water levels and water quality in the deeper, regional aquifers were unaffected by mining.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗