Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Technical Note”

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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2024

Distribution of yellow crazy ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) and notes on other ant species at Wake Atoll, 6-21 October, 2023

Wake Atoll, located in the central Pacific Ocean, is a tropical coral atoll comprised of three islands totaling 696 ha of emergent land. Wake Atoll supports at least 17 species of non-native ants, but one species, the yellow crazy ant ( Anoplolepis gracilipes ), is especially harmful to ecosystems, including seabirds, which are federally protected species and nest throughout Wake Atoll. Our objective was to map the distribution of yellow crazy ants (YCA) across Wake Atoll to provide U.S. Air Force managers with information that could inform an eradication strategy for this species. In addition, we documented the presence of other ant species identified during our survey. We used a 50 x 50-m cell-based sampling grid to survey for YCA and other ant species. YCA were widespread across the atoll, occupying all three islands and were detected in 566 of the 3,675 (15.4%) cells surveyed, covering an area of about 142 ha. The highest proportion of cells containing YCA was on Wilkes Island (99 of 400 cells or 24.8%), followed by Wake Island (395 of 2,760 cells or 14.3%) and Peale Island (72 of 518 cells or 14.0%). YCA detections on Wilkes Island were restricted to Wilkes South (99 of 202 cells or 49.0%); no YCA were found on Wilkes North, an important area that supports the most diverse assemblage of nesting seabirds on Wake Atoll. Based on technologies developed to eradicate YCA from Johnston Atoll and elsewhere, eradicating YCA from Wake Atoll appears technically feasible. The occurrence of discrete populations (i.e., clusters of occupied cells separated from other clusters of occupied cells) within and among islands could allow a stepwise strategy where the short-term outcome of the treatment of one population is independent of the outcome of another treatment. Without action, the high-density YCA population on Wilkes South could breach the narrow (~50 m), sometimes dry, channel separating Wilkes North and South, posing a serious threat to nesting seabirds present on Wilkes North. Eradicating YCA from Wilkes South would create a buffer from YCA and reduce the threat of northward movement of YCA. We also detected 12 ant species other than YCA during our survey, including Lepisiota frauenfeldi , a new record for the atoll.

Hawaii Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report↗
USGS2017

Scientific monitoring plan in support of the selected alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), its bureaus, and to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) in support of implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). The selected alternative identified in the LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) describes various data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation efforts to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), partner agencies, and cooperators that will inform decisions about operations of Glen Canyon Dam and management of downstream resources between 2017 and 2037, the performance period of the LTEMP. General data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation activities are described in this science plan, whereas specific monitoring and research activities and detailed study plans are to be described in the GCDAMP’s triennial work plans (TWPs) to be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC with input from partner agencies and cooperators during the LTEMP period, which are to be reviewed and recommended by the GCDAMP and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The GCDAMP consists of several components, the primary committee being the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This Federal advisory committee is composed of 25 agencies and stakeholder groups and is chaired by the Secretary of the Interior’s designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other experimental management actions that are intended to fulfill some obligations of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice to the AMWG. It is composed of technical and science representatives from the same agencies and stakeholder groups who serve on the AMWG. GCMRC is the primary science provider to the GCDAMP and also coordinates many aspects of the science performed by cooperators and partner agencies. The Science Advisors Program provides independent science reviews and advice at the request of the GCDAMP. The plan proposed here necessarily depends on (1) the protocol for decision-making and the requirements for scientific data reporting described in the LTEMP ROD, (2) the priorities of the GCDAMP as directed by the LTEMP ROD (see Department of the Interior, 2016b, section 6.1), (3) the priorities for monitoring and research in the conservation measures section of the Biological Opinion for the LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b, LTEMP ROD attachment E), (4) the priorities for resource management and information needs established by Federal and State resource-management agencies within the GCDAMP, (5) scientific understanding about the linkage between the status of those resources and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and (6) the need to resolve existing scientific uncertainties about the linkage between dam operations and the condition of resources. We note that resource-management prioritization is fundamentally a policy decision charged specifically to DOI for the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons, as outlined most recently in the LTEMP ROD, and is not the responsibility of the GCMRC. However, it is the responsibility of the GCMRC to describe the nature of scientific understanding, the nature of scientific uncertainty, and the risk of making resourcemanagement decisions in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. The goals of science activities in the next 20 years are to inform operational decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations described in the LTEMP ROD, resolve remaining scientific uncertainties, and to monitor resource trends that are affected entirely, or in part, by dam operations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

The United States National Climate Assessment - Alaska Technical Regional Report

The Alaskan landscape is changing, both in terms of effects of human activities as a consequence of increased population, social and economic development and their effects on the local and broad landscape; and those effects that accompany naturally occurring hazards such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Some of the most prevalent changes, however, are those resulting from a changing climate, with both near term and potential upcoming effects expected to continue into the future. Alaska's average annual statewide temperatures have increased by nearly 4°F from 1949 to 2005, with significant spatial variability due to the large latitudinal and longitudinal expanse of the State. Increases in mean annual temperature have been greatest in the interior region, and smallest in the State's southwest coastal regions. In general, however, trends point toward increases in both minimum temperatures, and in fewer extreme cold days. Trends in precipitation are somewhat similar to those in temperature, but with more variability. On the whole, Alaska saw a 10-percent increase in precipitation from 1949 to 2005, with the greatest increases recorded in winter. The National Climate Assessment has designated two well-established scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nakicenovic and others, 2001) as a minimum set that technical and author teams considered as context in preparing portions of this assessment. These two scenarios are referred to as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 and B1 scenarios, which assume either a continuation of recent trends in fossil fuel use (A2) or a vigorous global effort to reduce fossil fuel use (B1). Temperature increases from 4 to 22°F are predicted (to 2070-2099) depending on which emissions scenario (A2 or B1) is used with the least warming in southeast Alaska and the greatest in the northwest. Concomitant with temperature changes, by the end of the 21st century the growing season is expected to lengthen by 15-25 days in some areas of Alaska, with much of that corresponding with earlier spring snow melt. Future projections of precipitation (30-80 years) over Alaska show an increase across the State, with the largest changes in the northwest and smallest in the southeast. Because of increasing temperatures and growing season length, however, increased precipitation may not correspond with increased water availability, due to temperature related increased evapotranspiration. The extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s, with stronger trends noted since the late 1980s. Alaska has experienced similar trends, with a strong decrease in snow cover extent occurring in May. When averaged across the State, the disappearance of snow in the spring has occurred from 4 to 6 days earlier per decade, and snow return in fall has occurred approximately 2 days later per decade. This change appears to be driven by climate warming rather than a decrease in winter precipitation, with average winter temperatures also increasing by about 2.5°F. The extent of sea ice has been declining, as has been widely published in both national and scientific media outlets, and is projected to continue to decline during this century. The observed decline in annual sea ice minimum extent (September) has occurred more rapidly than was predicted by climate models and has been accompanied by decreases in ice thickness and in the presence of multi-year ice. This decrease was first documented by satellite imagery in the late 1970s for the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and is projected to continue, with the potential for the disappearance of summer sea ice by mid- to late century. A new phenomenon that was not reported in previous assessments is ocean acidification. Uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by oceans has a significant effect on marine biogeochemistry by reducing seawater pH. Ocean acidification is of particular concern in Alaska, because cold sea water absorbs CO2 more rapidly than warm water, and a decrease in sea ice extent has allowed increased sea surface exposure and more uptake of CO2 into these northern waters. Ocean acidification will likely affect the ability of organisms to produce and maintain shell material, such as aragonite or calcite (calcium carbonate minerals structured from carbonate ions), required by many shelled organism, from mollusks to corals to microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Direct biological effects in Alaska further along the food chain have yet to be studied and may vary among organisms. Some of the potentially most significant changes to Alaska that could result from a changing climate are the effects on the terrestrial cryosphere - particularly glaciers and permafrost. Alaskan glaciers are changing at a rapid rate, the primary driver appearing to be temperature. Statewide, glaciers lost 13 cubic miles of ice annually from the 1950s to the 1990s, and that rate doubled in the 2000s. However, like temperature and precipitation, glacier ice loss is not spatially uniform; most glaciers are losing mass, yet some are growing (for example Hubbard Glacier in southeast Alaska). Alaska glaciers with the most rapid loss are those terminating in sea water or lakes. With this increasing rate of melt, the contribution of surplus fresh water entering into the oceans from Alaska's glaciers, as well as those in neighboring British Columbia, Canada, is approximately 20 percent of that contributed by the Greenland Ice Sheet. Permafrost degradation (that is, the thawing of ice-rich soils) is currently (2012) impacting infrastructure and surface-water availability in areas of both discontinuous and continuous ground ice. Over most of the State, the permafrost is warming, with increasing temperatures broadly consistent with increasing air temperatures. On the Arctic coastal plain of Alaska, permafrost temperatures showed some cooling in the 1950s and 1960s but have been followed by a roughly 5°F increase since the 1980s. Many areas in the continuous permafrost zone have seen increases in temperature in the seasonally active layer and a decrease in re-freezing rates. Changes in the discontinuous permafrost zone are initially much more observable due to the resulting thermokarst terrain (land surface formed as ice rich permafrost thaws), most notable in boreal forested areas. Climate warming in Alaska has potentially broad implications for human health and food security, especially in rural areas, as well as increased risk for injury with changing winter ice conditions. Additionally, such warming poses the potential for increasing damage to existing water and sanitation facilities and challenges for development of new facilities, especially in areas underlain by permafrost. Non-infectious and infectious diseases also are becoming an increasing concern. For example, from 1999 to 2006 there was a statistically significant increase in medical claims for insectbite reactions in five of six regions of Alaska, with the largest percentage increase occurring in the most northern areas. The availability and quality of subsistence foods, normally considered to be very healthy, may change due to changing access, changing habitats, and spoilage of meat in food storage cellars. These and other trends and potential outcomes resulting from a changing climate are further described in this report. In addition, we describe new science leadership activities that have been initiated to address and provide guidance toward conducting research aimed at making available information for policy makers and land management agencies to better understand, address, and plan for changes to the local and regional environment. This report cites data in both metric and standard units due to the contributions by numerous authors and the direct reference of their data.

Alaska↗
USGS2012

California spotted owls

California spotted owls ( Strix occidentalis occidentalis ) are habitat specialists that are strongly associated with late-successional forests. For nesting and roosting, they require large trees and snags embedded in a stand with a complex forest structure (Blakesley et al. 2005, Gutiérrez et al. 1992, Verner et al. 1992b). In mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, California spotted owls typically nest and roost in stands with high canopy closure (≥75 percent) [Note: when citing studies, we use terminology consistent with Jennings et al. (1999), however, not all studies properly distinguish between canopy cover and closure and often use the terms interchangeably (see chapter 14 for clarification)] and an abundance of large trees (>24 in (60 cm) diameter at breast height [d.b.h.]) (Bias and Gutiérrez 1992, Gutiérrez et al. 1992, LaHaye et al. 1997, Moen and Gutiérrez 1997, Verner et al. 1992a). The California spotted owl guidelines (Verner et al. 1992b) effectively summarized much of the information about nesting and roosting habitat. Since that report, research on the California spotted owl has continued with much of the new information concentrated in five areas: population trends, barred owl ( Strix varia ) invasion, climate effects, foraging habitat, and owl response to fire.

California↗
USGS2021

Performance of the GenEst Mortality Estimator Compared to The Huso and Shoenfeld Estimators

The impacts of wind power development on bat and bird populations are commonly assessed by estimating the number of fatalities at wind power facilities through post-construction monitoring (PCM) studies. Standard methodology involves periodic carcass searches on plots beneath turbines (Strickland et al. 2011, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). The resulting counts are adjusted to compensate for bias due to imperfect carcass detection by searchers, removal of carcasses by scavengers or other processes (Korner-Nievergelt et al. 2011), and carcasses that may have fallen outside of searched areas. To account for the bias in counts due to imperfect detection and carcass removal, investigators typically conduct bias trial experiments to inform models of carcass detection probability. Many different estimators have been proposed that combine information about the bias trial experiments to estimate a detection probability for carcasses (g) and ultimately obtain an estimate of total mortality (M). The two estimators that have seen the most widespread use in North America recently are the Huso (Huso 2011, Huso et al. 2012) and Shoenfeld (Shoenfeld 2004; also called the Erickson estimator) estimators. GenEst (Dalthorp et al. 2018a, 2018b, 2018c) is the newest statistical estimator to become available and was designed to improve upon the Huso and Shoenfeld estimators by generalizing the key assumptions in both, and to improve comparability among new PCM studies. In addition to relaxing some of the assumptions inherent to the Huso and Shoenfeld estimators, GenEst uses a parametric bootstrap applied to a novel approach to variance estimation (Madsen et al. 2019). The current study was undertaken to document the performance of GenEst relative to the Huso and Shoenfeld estimators. We took a simulation approach to the study because simulation data provides the basis to compare mortality estimators under conditions where the “truth” is known. The estimators were compared on three metrics: 1) bias—the tendency of an estimator to over- or under-estimate actual mortality, 2) precision—the ability of an estimator to constrain an estimate to a narrow range (measured here as the width of a 90% confidence interval [CI] around the point estimate divided by the true, known mortality), and 3) CI coverage—the probability a CI with a specified level of confidence actually includes the true level of mortality. Although our simulations were conceived and designed—and are discussed—with respect to wind power facilities, it is important to note that the estimators and results discussed here are relevant to any post-construction fatality monitoring study that may occur (such as at solar facilities) where detection is imperfect. Although our study treats the problem of mortality estimation when detection is imperfect, it is also important to note that all of the estimators considered here are Horvitz-Thompson (Horvitz and Thompson 1952) style estimators, that is, none are designed to estimate the mortality of rare species as might be necessary under an Incidental Take Permit. The Evidence of Absence estimator (Dalthorp et al. 2017) is still the most appropriate statistical tool for rare event estimation. The simulations cover a broad range of conditions that may occur in field studies and complete results are presented without commentary in the appendix. The main body of this report does not provide a comprehensive treatment of our results; rather, we try to identify some of the more important differences among the estimators and some conditions under which reliable mortality estimates are especially challenging.

AWWI Technical Report↗
USGS2024

Monitoring marine eruptions

Introduction Submarine volcanoes produce much of the same seismicity and eruptive activity as subaerial volcanoes and can pose hazards to society. Although they can be monitored with similar techniques and methods as described in other chapters of this volume, their submerged location brings unique challenges. This chapter addresses these challenges and provides recommendations for monitoring volcanoes fully or partly in marine environments to meet the capabilities described in other chapters of this volume. The United States and its territories host dozens of submarine volcanoes with most (around 60) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately 20 of the Northern Mariana Islands submarine volcanoes are known to be hydrothermally active, and 10 have confirmed eruptions since the 1950s (for example, Baker and others, 2008; Tepp and others, 2019a). Nine of those volcanoes were considered by the National Volcanic Threat Assessment (Ewert and others, 2018) to have a combination of eruptive type and summit depth that poses a higher risk of hazardous eruptions, although only one was listed as a moderate (level 3) threat. Other notable submarine volcanoes of interest to the United States that have historically erupted are Axial Seamount off the Washington State coast, Kamaʻehuakanaloa in Hawaiʻi, and Vailuluʻu seamount in American Samoa. All of these, however, have a low risk of hazards because of their depth (greater than 600 meters below sea level) and eruptive type and so are not included in the National Volcanic Threat Assessment. In addition to submarine volcanoes, the submerged flanks of island volcanoes can also be a source of hazardous submarine eruptions—for example, the 1877 eruption of Mauna Loa, Hawai‘i, in Kealakekua Bay (Wanless and others, 2006). The most notable submarine eruption in recent times was the 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in Tonga, which was one of the largest eruptions on Earth in the past 100 years. It created a massive volcanic plume, unprecedented shock waves, and far-reaching tsunami (Lynett and others, 2022). Other recent submarine eruptions in the Pacific Ocean Basin have produced subaerial plumes that reached aircraft heights (Carey and others, 2014) and large pumice rafts that can affect marine traffic and harbors (for example, Jutzeler and others, 2014; Kornei, 2019). These examples illustrate the potential hazards of major submarine eruptions. Yet, submarine volcanoes are largely unmonitored, and many eruptions occur that are unnoticed or only identified hours or days afterward. Within U.S. territory, submarine volcanoes in the Northern Mariana Islands have been known to produce eruptive activity that can affect society. Reports from fishermen and other marine vessels in the Northern Mariana Islands have noted underwater explosions, sea-surface discoloration, and bubbling water, all of which are known to be signs of submarine volcanic activity. South Sarigan seamount, located about 160 kilometers (km) north of Saipan, erupted in 2010 from greater than 150 meters below the sea surface, resulting in a gas and ash plume that reached more than 11.9 km into the atmosphere (for example, Searcy, 2013; Embley and others, 2014), high enough to affect international air traffic. Precursory and co-eruptive seismicity was detected on the regional Northern Mariana Islands seismic network (Searcy, 2013) and on global monitoring instruments (Green and others, 2013). Monitoring of submarine volcanoes is best accomplished with marine-based instrumentation, which is also useful for monitoring small island volcanoes that may not have the land area necessary for comprehensive subaerial monitoring. The primary marine-based instrumentation used for submarine volcanoes includes ocean-bottom pressure sensors to assess sea-floor deformation, ocean-bottom seismometers (OBSs) to detect seismicity, and both moored and ocean-bottom hydrophones to detect submarine explosions. Other sensors offer important monitoring data, such as turbidity, temperature, and chemistry of hydrothermal emissions. Marine-based instruments are typically deployed in campaign-style networks with no real-time telemetry owing to cost considerations and technical limitations. However, when necessary, marine instruments can be operated in real time using cables to transmit data to land-based facilities; other technologies for this purpose are in use or in development, such as acoustic transmission from the instrument to a moored buoy (Matsumoto and others, 2016) and a winch-based system with a satellite antenna that is part of the instrument mooring (Matsumoto and others, 2019). Emerging technologies for marine-based monitoring may be considered as part of a future monitoring plan. These technologies include ocean gliders and floats with on-board hydrophones that have been used to record earthquakes and submarine eruptions (for example, Matsumoto and others, 2013; Sukhovich and others, 2015) and fiber-optic cables that have been used as strainmeters to detect earthquakes (for example, Marra and others, 2018; Lindsey and others, 2019). Land-based instruments and satellites can also provide some capability for monitoring submarine volcanoes, but they provide more limited observations than marine-based instrumentation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

Seventy-five years of science—The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center

As of January 2010, 75 years have elapsed since Dr. Frederic Fish initiated the pioneering research program that would evolve into today’s Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC). Fish began his research working alone in the basement of the recently opened Fisheries Biological Laboratory on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington. WFRC’s research began under the aegis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ends its first 75 years as part of the U.S. Geological Survey with a staff of more than 150 biologists and support personnel and a heritage of fundamental research that has made important contributions to our understanding of the biology and ecology of the economically important fish and fish populations of the Nation. Although the current staff may rarely stop to think about it, WFRC’s antecedents extend many years into the past and are intimately involved with the history of fisheries conservation in the Western United States. Thus, WFRC Director Lyman Thorsteinson asked me to write the story of this laboratory “while there are still a few of you around who were here for some of the earlier years” to document the rich history and culture of WFRC by recognizing its many famous scientists and their achievements. This historyalso would help document WFRC’s research ‘footprint’ in the Western United States and its strategic directions. Center Director Thorsteinson concluded that WFRC’s heritage told by an emeritus scientist also would add a texture of legitimacy based on personal knowledge that will all-to-soon be lost to the WFRC and to the USGS. The WFRC story is important for the future as well as for historical reasons. It describes how we got to the place we are today by documenting the origin, original mission, and our evolving role in response to the constantly changing technical information requirements of new environmental legislation and organizational decision-making. The WFRC research program owes its existence to the policy requirements of Federal conservation legislation originating with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1933. The research program was shaped by laws enacted in subsequent years such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), National Environmental Policy Act (1973), Endangered Species Act (1974), and Northwest Power Planning Act (1980), to name only a few. The WFRC has not been constrained by direct management or regulatory responsibility for a particular fishery (such as providing sustainable catch limits data to a resource management structure). Thus, WFRC has been able to concentrate on scientific pursuits and information needs required by contemporary environmental legislation. Over the years, we have pioneered in several important areas of fisheries research including the diagnoses and control of diseases in economically important fish, effects of environmental alterations on the physiological quality and survival of Pacific salmon released from federal mitigation hatcheries, applications in biotelemetry, and the bioenergetics of predator-prey interactions in the Columbia River. The WFRC of today is a widely distributed organization in the Western United States. Knowledge of the historical connections and accomplishments of our predecessors is important beyond the sense of pride and unity it instills in the WFRC family of today. For example, a discerning reader will note the evolution of WFRC’s research from a single disciplinary focus (early era—hatchery disease problems), to multiple disciplines (middle to late era—species, populations, habitats; threatened and endangered species), to the present era (multidisciplinary and with increasing process focus). For the benefit of the current WFRC staff, more emphasis has been placed on the early years rather than on the present day because people are quite naturally more familiar with the recent past than with the research done during the first decades of WFRC’s existence. By every rational measure, the WFRC has evolved into a fisheries research organization well positioned to provide the biological information needed to support the continued conservation and management of our Nation’s living aquatic natural resources. The high standard of excellence that connects WFRC’s past to our present research program provides a firm foundation on which to base the work yet to be done. In another 75 years, WFRC will undoubtedly be a very different place than it is today, but its evolution will be forever rooted in the story of the research and of the people related here. More about the diverse fisheries research projects WFRC scientists are conducting today is available at WFRC’s website: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.

Washington↗
USGS2004

Incorporating uncertainty into mercury-offset decisions with a probabilistic network for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit holders: An interim report

This interim report describes an alternative approach for evaluating the efficacy of using mercury (Hg) offsets to improve water quality. Hg-offset programs may allow dischargers facing higher-pollution control costs to meet their regulatory obligations by making more cost effective pollutant-reduction decisions. Efficient Hg management requires methods to translate that science and economics into a regulatory decision framework. This report documents the work in progress by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Geographic Science Center in collaboration with Stanford University toward developing this decision framework to help managers, regulators, and other stakeholders decide whether offsets can cost effectively meet the Hg total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements in the Sacramento River watershed. Two key approaches being considered are: (1) a probabilistic approach that explicitly incorporates scientific uncertainty, cost information, and value judgments; and (2) a quantitative approach that captures uncertainty in testing the feasibility of Hg offsets. Current fate and transport-process models commonly attempt to predict chemical transformations and transport pathways deterministically. However, the physical, chemical, and biologic processes controlling the fate and transport of Hg in aquatic environments are complex and poorly understood. Deterministic models of Hg environmental behavior contain large uncertainties, reflecting this lack of understanding. The uncertainty in these underlying physical processes may produce similarly large uncertainties in the decisionmaking process. However, decisions about control strategies are still being made despite the large uncertainties in current Hg loadings, the relations between total Hg (HgT) loading and methylmercury (MeHg) formation, and the relations between control efforts and Hg content in fish. The research presented here focuses on an alternative analytical approach to the current use of safety factors and deterministic methods for Hg TMDL decision support, one that is fully compatible with an adaptive management approach. This alternative approach uses empirical data and informed judgment to provide a scientific and technical basis for helping National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders make management decisions. An Hg-offset system would be an option if a wastewater-treatment plant could not achieve NPDES permit requirements for HgT reduction. We develop a probabilistic decision-analytical model consisting of three submodels for HgT loading, MeHg, and cost mitigation within a Bayesian network that integrates information of varying rigor and detail into a simple model of a complex system. Hg processes are identified and quantified by using a combination of historical data, statistical models, and expert judgment. Such an integrated approach to uncertainty analysis allows easy updating of prediction and inference when observations of model variables are made. We demonstrate our approach with data from the Cache Creek watershed (a subbasin of the Sacramento River watershed). The empirical models used to generate the needed probability distributions are based on the same empirical models currently being used by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Cache Creek Hg TMDL working group. The significant difference is that input uncertainty and error are explicitly included in the model and propagated throughout its algorithms. This work demonstrates how to integrate uncertainty into the complex and highly uncertain Hg TMDL decisionmaking process. The various sources of uncertainty are propagated as decision risk that allows decisionmakers to simultaneously consider uncertainties in remediation/implementation costs while attempting to meet environmental/ecologic targets. We must note that this research is on going. As more data are collected, the HgT and cost-mitigation submodels are updated and the uncertainties may be reduced. Subsequently, the value of using a probabilistic framework for estimating and explicitly stating these uncertainties within a decisionmaking process can be estimated when new data are collected. Future work includes the design and implementation of a Bayesian network decision support system (BN-DSS) to produce mitigation scenarios for offset-project evaluation in the Cache Creek watershed. The decisionmaker, a wastewater-treatment plant, is expected to evaluate potential Hg-offset programs in terms of changes in HgT load changes, MeHg-production potential, project cost, and other suitability criteria. Subsequently, scenarios can be analyzed by performing sensitivity analyses and ranking environmental and economic uncertainties in terms of the decisionmaker’s preferences and risk choices. Such an analysis allows decisionmakers and stakeholders to explore various scenarios and predict the consequences of different stated preferences over outcomes.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Species of conservation concern and environmental stressors: Local regional and global effects

Species conservation has traditionally been based on individual species within the context of their requisite habitat, which is generally defined as the communities and ecosystems deemed necessary for their presence. Conservation decisions are hampered by the fact that environmental stressors that poetically threaten the persistence of species can operate at organizational levels larger than the habitat or home range of a focal species. Resource managers must therefore simultaneously consider local, regional, and/or global scale stressors for effective conservation and management of species of concern. The wide ranging effects associated with global stressors such as climate change may exceed or exacerbate the effects of local or regional stressors, they still need to understand the direct and interactive effects of global stressors and ultimately how they affect the lands they manage. Conservation of species in southern Nevada is further complication by the fact that the region includes one of the largest and fastest growing urban centers in North America. To accomplish the goal of species conservation, resource managers must identify actionable management options that mitigate the effects of local and regional stressor in the context of the effects of global stressors that are beyond their control. Species conservation is typically focused on a subset often referred to as species of conservation concern that have either demonstrated considerable decline or are naturally rare or have limited distributions. Stressors can directly and indirectly impact species in a variety of ways and through a diversity of mechanisms. Some stressors have been more intense in the past (e.g., livestock grazing) whereas other are now only emerging as new stressors (e.g., solar energy development, climate change). The primary stressors affecting southern Nevada ecosystems are listed in table 2.1 and reviewed in detail in Chapter 2. This chapter addresses Dub-goal 1.4 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy which is to sustain and enhance southern Nevada's biotic communities to preserve biodiversity wand maintain viable populations (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009). We provide numerous examples of how stressors affect the range and/or habitat of select species of conservation concern. It is important to note that the species or groups discussed in this chapter by no means represent a comprehensive treatment of all species of conservation concern listed in Table 1.2 (Chapter 1). Rather, several species were chosen as examples for each southern Nevada ecosystem type to illustrate how stressors and linkages among them can affect species of conservation concern, keeping in mind that many of the species considered here are found in more than one ecosystem type. In addition, the stressors that may impact a species in one ecosystem may not be those that affect it in another ecosystem and different species in the same ecosystem may not be affected by the same suite of stressors. Finally, at the start of each ecosystem section we summarize key resource concerns, species used as examples, key stressors, and potential synergistic effects of those stressors relative to the species example.

Nevada↗
USGS2026

Lower Eastern Shore Tributary summary: A summary of trends in tidal water quality and associated factors, 1985-2023

The Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Summary outlines change over time according to a suite of monitored tidal water quality parameters and associated potential drivers of those trends for the period 1985 – 2023, and provides a brief description of the current state of knowledge explaining these observed changes. Water quality parameters described include surface (above pycnocline) total nitrogen (TN), surface total phosphorus (TP), surface water temperature (WTEMP), spring (March-May) and summer (July-September) surface chlorophyll a, summer bottom (below pycnocline) dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and Secchi disk depth (a measure of water clarity). Results for annual bottom TP, bottom TN, surface ortho-phosphate (PO4), surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), surface total suspended solids (TSS), and summer surface DO concentrations are provided in an Appendix B. Drivers discussed include physiographic watershed characteristics, changes in TN, TP, and sediment loads from the watershed to tidal waters, expected effects of changing land use, and implementation of nutrient management and natural resource conservation practices. Factors internal to estuarine waters that also play a role as drivers are described including biogeochemical processes, physical forces such as winddriven mixing of the water column and increase in rainfall intensity and volume, and biological factors such as phytoplankton biomass and the presence of submersed aquatic vegetation. Continuing to track water quality response and investigating these influencing factors are important steps to understanding water quality patterns and changes in the Lower Eastern Shore. The intended audiences for this report include, but are not limited to, 1) technical managers within jurisdictions who use tidal water quality to inform management decisions, 2) local watershed organizations that are trying to understand these analyses and working to connect them to their local area(s), and 3) federal, state, and academic researchers. Figure 1 presents a conceptual model highlighting these intended audiences. The Tributary Summary documents are sources of readily available background for change over time in tidal water quality observed with monitoring data. They help answer questions related to water quality, show how landscape factors drive water-quality changes over time, provide support for management decisions that may alter water quality trends and living resources conditions, and highlight where there may be information or knowledge gaps.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2015

Comment on Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, ELAPIDAE): request for confirmation of availability of the generic name and for the nomenclatural validation of the journal in which it was published (Case 3601; BZN 70:234–237; 71:30–38; 133-135,181-182 ,252-253)

In Case 3601 Raymond Hoser has asked the Commission to validate for the purposes of nomenclature the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009, and ‘the journal in which it was published,’ issue 7 of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH). We note that the entire run of AJH has been written, edited, and published solely by Hoser. Although his requests to the Commission were presented as narrow and, in his words, ‘routine matters,’ we are convinced that they represent an important tipping-point with broad implications of major concern for zoological taxonomy and nomenclature as a whole and, by extension, the greater scientific community. Since Hoser’s actions and works have failed to follow scientific best practices (e.g. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, 2007, 2014; Kaiser et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2014) and both the Commission’s general Recommendations and Code of Ethics in Appendix A, the global herpetological community has widely rejected his taxonomic decisions and resultant nomenclature. This has unfortunately caused a confusing dual nomenclature to develop in the herpetological community, with most boycotting or ignoring Hoser’s 700+ new names coined in the AJH, while he and a few personal followers actively promote their usage. We believe that suppression of the name Spracklandus , and all issues of AJH, is the only effective way to bring this contentious and confusing issue to resolution. The plenary power available under Article 81.1 of the Code exist specifically to allow the Commission to make rulings in individual cases that disturb stability and cause confusion, whether the works are Code-compliant or not. We maintain that it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability, not only for herpetology, but for all of zoological taxonomy, that the plenary power be invoked to declare the works in AJH unavailable, regardless of any narrow interpretation of their technical Code-compliance. We present our arguments for rejection of the validity of AJH in the following commentary. In view of the wide-reaching implications of this case for all of zoology, and reflecting the deep and broad-based community concern over these issues, our contributing authors include 70 global scientific leaders and accomplished amateurs from a wide variety of zoological disciplines.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature↗
USGS2023

James Tributary summary: A summary of trends in tidal water quality and associated factors, 1985-2021

The James Tributary Summary outlines change over time for a suite of monitored tidal water quality parameters and associated potential drivers of those trends for the period 1985 – 2021 and provides a brief description of the current state of knowledge explaining these observed changes. Water quality parameters described include surface (above pycnocline) total nitrogen (TN), surface total phosphorus (TP), surface water temperature (WTEMP), spring and summer (June, July, August) surface chlorophyll a, summer bottom (below pycnocline) dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and Secchi disk depth (a measure of water clarity). Results for annual bottom TP, bottom TN, surface ortho-phosphate (PO4), surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), surface total suspended solids (TSS), and summer surface DO concentrations are provided in an Appendix. Drivers discussed include physiographic watershed characteristics, changes in TN, TP, and sediment loads from the watershed to tidal waters, expected effects of changing land use, and implementation of nutrient management and natural resource conservation practices. Factors internal to estuarine waters that also play a role as drivers are described including biogeochemical processes, physical forces such as wind-driven mixing of the water column and increase in rainfall intensity and volume, and biological factors such as phytoplankton biomass and the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation. Continuing to track water quality response and investigating these influencing factors are important steps to understanding water quality patterns and changes in the James River. The intended audiences for this report include, but are not limited to, 1) technical managers within jurisdictions who are looking at tidal water quality data and trying to understand why patterns are occurring, 2) local watershed organizations that are trying to understand these analyses and working to connect them to their local area(s), and 3) federal, state, and academic researchers. Figure 1 presents a conceptual model highlighting these intended audiences. Our goal is for the Tributary Summary documents to be sources of readily available background for change over time in tidal water quality observed with monitoring data. The intended purpose of the Tributary Summary documents is to help answer questions related to water quality, show how landscape factors drive water quality change over time, provide support for management decisions that may alter water quality trends and living resources conditions, and highlight where there may be information or knowledge gaps.

Virginia↗
USGS2024

Rappahannock tributary summary: A summary of trends in tidal water quality and associated factors, 1985-2022

The Rappahannock Tributary Summary outlines change over time for a suite of monitored tidal water quality parameters and associated potential drivers of those trends for the period of 1985 to 2022, and provides a brief description of the current state of knowledge explaining these observed changes. Water quality parameters described include surface (above pycnocline) total nitrogen (TN), surface total phosphorus (TP), surface water temperature (WTEMP), spring (March-May) and summer (JulySeptember) surface chlorophyll a, summer bottom (below pycnocline) dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and Secchi disk depth (a measure of water clarity). Results for annual bottom TP, bottom TN, surface ortho-phosphate (PO 4 ), surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), surface total suspended solids (TSS), and summer surface DO concentrations are provided in Appendix B. Drivers discussed include physiographic watershed characteristics, changes in TN, TP, and sediment loads from the watershed to tidal waters, expected effects of changing land use, and implementation of nutrient management and natural resource conservation practices. Factors internal to estuarine waters that also play a role as drivers are described including biogeochemical processes, physical forces such as winddriven mixing of the water column and increase in rainfall intensity and volume, and biological factors such as phytoplankton biomass and the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation. Continuing to track water quality response and investigating these influencing factors are important steps to understanding water quality patterns and changes in the Rappahannock River. The intended audiences for this report include, but are not limited to, 1) technical managers within jurisdictions who are looking at tidal water quality data and trying to understand why patterns are occurring, 2) local watershed organizations that are trying to understand these analyses and working to connect them to their local area(s), and 3) federal, state, and academic researchers. Figure 1 presents a conceptual model highlighting these intended audiences. Our goal is for the Tributary Summary documents to be sources of readily available background for change over time in tidal water quality observed with monitoring data. The intended purpose of the Tributary Summary documents is to help answer questions related to water quality, show how landscape factors drive water quality change over time, provide support for management decisions that may alter water quality trends and living resources conditions, and highlight where there may be information or knowledge gaps.

Virginia↗
USGS2022

Great Lakes spatial priorities study

Spatial data about the bathymetry, habitat characteristics, underlying geology, and other features of the ocean and inland seas are essential for decision-making. Marine research and management organizations use these data to help ensure safe navigation, promote sustainable fisheries, extract energy, and protect marine habitats in the coastal and ocean waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Laurentian Great Lakes. Many of these organizations may have overlapping or shared mapping interests without knowing it. In a multi-jurisdictional planning environment, it can be challenging and cumbersome to determine where other entities have shared or overlapping mapping interests, especially across a transnational region such as the Great Lakes. State and provincial governments, federal governments, academia, tribes and First Nations, and other stakeholders from both the U.S. and Canada all have mapping interests across Great Lakes waters. Identifying and communicating target geographies for new data collection that are shared among multiple organizations can both help to avoid redundancy of new mapping efforts, and create opportunities for greater efficiency through collaboration. To address this issue, a spatial priorities study was conducted using a geospatial tool developed by the National Ocean Services National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science (NCCOS). The tool provided an easy-to-use online interface in which programs can identify their priorities in a simple and straightforward way. This study asked representatives of Great Lakes management and science organizations to identify the areas for which they needed maps of lakebed features on a near-term, mid-term, and long-term timeframe, and why. Then, the responses were analyzed and overlaid to determine areas of shared mapping need and opportunity and to determine the types of map products needed. The analysis revealed high interest among multiple organizations in discrete geographies including the Minnesota and Wisconsin shoreline from Duluth to the eastern extent of the Bayfield Peninsula, Green Bay in Lake Michigan, and the southern coastlines of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, the St. Marys River, and the northern Lake Superior coastal waters near Grand Portage, MN. Lower priority mapping interest were distributed widely across all lakes, but tended to be concentrated in nearshore areas (<30 m depth). The analysis also indicated that the top mapping justifications were Habitat/biota/natural area, Benthic exploration, Commercial and recreational fishing, and Scientific research. The top desired map product types were Elevation, Substrate/sub-bottom geologic characterization, and Habitat map/characterization, although participants on some lakes noted other less prevalent product types. Following from previously conducted NOAA and non-NOAA Federal spatial prioritization exercises, the results of this regional focus can help mapping organizations better understand how their priorities align with the needs of regional organizations, allow for more efficient coordination and funding, and enable partners to leverage assets and resources to fill their most pressing data and information gaps across Great Lakes waters. The U.S. Mapping Coordination Site hosts the results of this study and other spatial prioritization studies. Through this website, one can interact with the study results along with recent and planned mapping efforts. NOAA intends to update their spatial priorities on a three- to five-year basis. Future studies should strive to expand participation of federal agencies, state and local governments, federally-recognized tribes, academia, and private industry (among other stakeholders) to seek out ocean mapping partnerships in conjunction with the National Ocean Mapping, Exploration and Characterization (NOMEC) goals map once, use many times.”

Great Lakes↗
USGS1982

Impact of Mount St. Helens eruption on hydrology and water quality

The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens in southeast Washington resulted in a pronounced effect on the surface and ground water resources of the state. In response to the volcanic activity, the U.S. Geological Survey intensified statewide surface and ground water sampling programs to determine the nature and magnitude of the volcanic-induced variations. Streams to the east of Mount St. Helens received the major ash fallout. Chemical effects were best noted in smaller streams sampled 60 to 70 miles northeast of Mount St. Helens. The chemical variations observed were pronounced but short lived. Sulfate and chloride increases in anionic composition were prevalent immediately following the eruption however, the original bicarbonate predominance was again attained within several days. Suspended iron and aluminum concentrations were similarly elevated during the period of greatest ash deposition (highest turbidity) however, the dissolved concentrations remained relatively constant. Depressions of pH were minor and short lived. Streams draining to the south, tributaries to the Columbia river, showed little observable changes in water chemistry. Streams draining to the west (Toutle river and its tributaries) were compositionally affected by the various volcanic activities. Chloride and sulfate anion percentage exceeded the bicarbonate percentage up to one month following the eruption period. Streams and lakes sampled in the immediate vicinity of Mount St. Helens, in addition to trace metals, contained organic compounds derived from decomposing wood buried in the debris deposits. This organic material may constitute a significant source of organic compounds to surface and ground water for some time to come.

Washington↗
USGS2019

Handbook to the partners in flight population estimates database, version 3.0

This document describes the content of Version 3.0 of the Partners in Flight (PIF) Population Estimates Database, which provides population estimates for breeding USA/Canada landbirds at several geographic scales following the Partners in Flight approach described initially in Rich et al. (2004) and by Rosenberg and Blancher (2005) and most recently refined by Stanton et al. (2019). The Handbook also provides details about how the estimates were derived, information on limitations and caveats, a guide to using the estimates, and future desired directions for improving the estimates. This version of the database is intended as a companion to the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States (Rosenberg et al. 2016), although estimates for most species included in the database have been updated from those used in the 2016 Plan. Most of the estimates in the database are based on North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data for landbirds from the decade 2006–2015. The information in this 2019 Version of the Handbook, for Version 3.0 of the database, describes all changes that have been made to the database since 2007 (Version 1.0, cf. Blancher et al. 2007)—including the additions documented in the Handbook for Version 2.0 (Blancher et al. 2013)—and therefore serves as a single source document describing the current database. Version 3.0 of the database addresses some of the recommendations suggested by Thogmartin et al. (2006) but does not yet fully address other limitations noted by Thogmartin et al. (2006), Blancher et al. (2007), Thogmartin (2010), Matsuoka et al. (2012), and Twedt (2015). By far, the most substantial change to the database comprises the incorporation of quantitative uncertainty bounds around population estimates for most species (see Stanton et al. 2019 for details). PIF Science anticipates that future versions of the database will occur in stages: first, improving elements of the basic PIF approach (e.g., incorporating more recent BBS data, updating Time of Day Adjustments, and refining Pair Adjustments); next, addressing additional concerns inherent in the PIF approach (e.g., replacing average maximum detection distance bins with research-derived species-specific effective detection radii); and later, perhaps replacing the sample-based PIF approach with a spatially-explicit, model-based (pixel-based) approach that more deliberately incorporates habitat and road biases and the proportion of birds available but not detected by current sampling methodology. This current Version 3.1 of the Handbook updates citations in the Literature Cited and incorporates relatively minor improvements in text clarity over the previous 3.0 version. The content of the Population Estimates Database itself remains the same except for changes to the global and USA/Canada estimates for Northern Bobwhite and Black Vulture.

Partners in Flight Technical Publication↗
USGS1996

Loess studies in central United States: Evolution of concepts

Few words in the realm of earth science have caused more debate than "loess". It is a common term that was first used as a name of a silt deposit before it was defined in a scientific sense. Because this "loose" deposit is easily distinguished from other more coherent deposits, it was recognized as a matter of practical concern and later became the object of much scientific scrutiny. Loess was first recognized along the Rhine Valley in Germany in the 1830s and was first noted in the United States in 1846 along the lower Mississippi River where it later became the center of attention. The use of the name eventually spread around the world, but its use has not been consistently applied. Over the years some interpretations and stratigraphic correlations have been validated, but others have been hotly contested on conceptual grounds and semantic issues. The concept of loess evolved into a complex issue as loess and loess-like deposits were discovered in different parts of the US. The evolution of concepts in the central US developed in four indefinite stages: the eras of (1) discovery and development of hypotheses, (2) conditional acceptance of the eolian origin of loess, (3) "bandwagon" popularity of loess research, and (4) analytical inquiry on the nature of loess. Toward the end of the first era around 1900, the popular opinion on the meaning of the term loess shifted from a lithological sense of loose silt to a lithogenetic sense of eolian silt. However, the dual use of the term fostered a lingering skepticism during the second era that ended in 1944 with an explosion of interest that lasted for more than a decade. In 1944, R.J. Russell proposed and H.N. Fisk defended a new non-eolian, property-based, concept of loess. The eolian advocates reacted with surprise and enthusiasm. Each side used constrained arguments to show their view of the problem, but did not examine the fundamental problem, which was not in the proofs of their hypothesis, but in the definition of the term. Between 1944 and about 1950, the debates about loess reached a maximum level of complexity. The main semantic problem was submersed in peripheral arguments about physical properties and genetic interpretations. The scholarly treatment of the subject by Fisk and Russell stimulated quality responses from a diversity of earth scientists interested in academic and applied studies, particularly geo-history, pedology, soil mechanics and stratigraphy. The long-lasting popularity of loess studies during the bandwagon era lasted to about 1970. By that time, the analytical and technical interests had attracted the mainstream into the fourth era with a focus beyond the old arguments. Although Fisk and Russell found themselves defending an unpopular theory, they stimulated a scientific interest in the late Quaternary history of the Mississippi Valley that may never be exceeded.

Engineering Geology↗
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↗