Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Special Technical Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

102 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2008

Environmental presence and persistence of pharmaceuticals: An overview

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

Book chapter↗
USGS2021

Synthesis of data and studies relating to Delta Smelt biology in the San Francisco Estuary, emphasizing water year 2017

In the San Francisco Estuary (SFE), the effects of freshwater flow on the aquatic ecosystem have been studied extensively over the years and remains a contentious management issue. It is especially contentious with regards to the Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), a species endemic to the SFE that has been listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act and endangered by the State of California. Early studies of Delta Smelt distribution within the SFE suggested that Delta Smelt habitat is determined largely by freshwater flow; however, the exact mechanisms and processes producing such benefits remained unclear. In the summer of 2017, the Flow Alteration Management, Analysis, and Synthesis Team (FLOAT-MAST) was established to analyze, synthesize, and summarize the data collected from the various flow-related monitoring and special studies occurring in 2017(see Table Intro 4). This report will focus on the 2017 summer-fall status of Delta Smelt and its habitat following a record wet year. There has been a long-term decline in the abundance of Delta Smelt associated with a decline in other pelagic fishes. Investigators concluded that the decline has likely been caused by the interactive effects of several causes, including changes in both physical and biotic habitats, many of which are tied to amount and timing of freshwater flow. For this report, we formulated a number of basic predictions about the likely effects of high flows in 2017 on Delta Smelt and their habitat (Table 3). We use a qualitative weight of evidence approach to evaluate whether these predictions were supported by available data. Data sources included a variety of long-term monitoring surveys conducted by Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) agencies, as well as model outputs. Delta Smelt population, health, and life history metrics rarely responded as predicted. Water temperature appears to have a stronger effect on Delta Smelt growth rate and some metrics of life history diversity than outflow or X2 position. Other life history diversity attributes varied but did not appear to be driven by outflow or temperature. Health status was difficult to interpret. Low prevalence of lesions and improved nutritional condition during the drought was contradicted by declining overall population levels. Because of the sparse catches of Delta Smelt in the post-POD years, we consider the data insufficient to reach firm conclusions about the predictions concerning range and distribution of Delta Smelt, especially in the fall. The prediction of high survival was not supported. The 2017 Delta Smelt year class began with poor recruitment in spring of 2017 and below average survival for spring to summer and summer to fall. Thus, low production and low survival led to low abundance of all life stages. During the fall to winter period survival improved, yet the resulting adults were low in number. Foraging success of the fish captured, as measured by stomach fullness, was high for juveniles and adults in 2017 relative to recent years associated with the higher densities of common zooplankton prey that occurred in 2017.

California↗
USGS2013

Proceedings of a workshop on American Eel passage technologies

Recent concerns regarding a decline in recruitment of American eels ( Anguilla rostrata ) have prompted efforts to restore this species to historic habitats by providing passage for both upstream migrant juveniles and downstream migrant adults at riverine barriers, including low-head and hydroelectric dams (Castonguay et al. 1994, Haro et al. 2000). These efforts include development of management plans and stock assessment reviews in both the US and Canada (COSEWIC 2006, Canadian Eel Working Group 2009, DFO 2010, MacGregor et al. 2010, ASMFC 2000, ASMFC 2006, ASMFC 2008, Williams and Threader 2007), which target improvement of upstream and downstream passage for eels, as well as identification and prioritization of research needs for development of new and more effective passage technologies for American eels. Traditional upstream fish passage structures, such as fishways and fish lifts, are often ineffective passing juvenile eels, and specialized passage structures for this species are needed. Although designs for such passage structures are available and diverse (Knights and White 1998, Porcher 2002, FAO/DVWK 2002, Solomon and Beach 2004a,b, Environment Agency UK 2011), many biologists, managers, and engineers are unfamiliar with eel pass design and operation, or unaware of the technical options available for upstream eel passage, Better coordination is needed to account for eel passage requirements during restoration efforts for other diadromous fish species. Also, appropriately siting eel passes at hydropower projects is critical, and siting can be difficult and complex due to physical restrictions in access to points of natural concentrations of eels, dynamic hydraulics of tailrace areas, and presence of significant competing flows from turbine outfalls or spill. As a result, some constructed eel passes are sited poorly and may pass only a fraction of the number of eels attempting to pass the barrier. When sited and constructed appropriately, however, eel passes can effectively pass thousands of individuals in a season (Appendix D). technologies for preventing impingement and entrainment mortality and injury of downstream migrant eels at hydropower projects are not well developed. Traditional downstream fish passage mitigative techniques originally developed for salmonids and other species are frequently ineffective passing eels (Richkus and Dixon 2003, EPRI 2001, Bruijs and Durif 2009). Large hydropower projects, with high project flows or intake openings that cannot be fitted with racks or screens with openings small enough to exclude eels, pose significant passage problems for this species, and turbine impingement and entrainment mortality of eels can be as high as 100%. Spill mortality and injury may also be significant for eels, given their tendency to move during high flow events when projects typically spill large amounts of flow. Delays in migration of eels that have difficulty locating and utilizing bypass entrances can also be significant. Therefore, downstream passage technologies are at a much more nebulous state of development than upstream passage technologies, and require further evaluation and improvement before rigorous design guidelines can be established. There have been few studies conducted to evaluate effectiveness of current mitigative measures for both upstream and downstream passage of eels. Research is needed to determine eel migratory timing, behavior, and appropriate mitigation technologies for specific sites and eel life history stages. Both upstream and downstream eel passage structures can be difficult to evaluate in terms of performance, and examples of how evaluation and monitoring can be accomplished were reviewed at the workshop.

Report↗
USGS2010

Groundwater-quality data for the Sierra Nevada study unit, 2008: Results from the California GAMA program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 25,500-square-mile Sierra Nevada study unit was investigated in June through October 2008, as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Sierra Nevada study was designed to provide statistically robust assessments of untreated groundwater quality within the primary aquifer systems in the study unit, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer systems (hereinafter, primary aquifers) are defined by the depth of the screened or open intervals of the wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database of wells used for public and community drinking-water supplies. The quality of groundwater in shallower or deeper water-bearing zones may differ from that in the primary aquifers; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to contamination from the surface. In the Sierra Nevada study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 84 wells (and springs) in Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Madera, Mariposa, Fresno, Inyo, Tulare, and Kern Counties. The wells were selected on two overlapping networks by using a spatially-distributed, randomized, grid-based approach. The primary grid-well network consisted of 30 wells, one well per grid cell in the study unit, and was designed to provide statistical representation of groundwater quality throughout the entire study unit. The lithologic grid-well network is a secondary grid that consisted of the wells in the primary grid-well network plus 53 additional wells and was designed to provide statistical representation of groundwater quality in each of the four major lithologic units in the Sierra Nevada study unit: granitic, metamorphic, sedimentary, and volcanic rocks. One natural spring that is not used for drinking water was sampled for comparison with a nearby primary grid well in the same cell. Groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA] and perchlorate), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major ions, total dissolved solids, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (radium isotopes, radon-222, gross alpha and gross beta particle activities, and uranium isotopes). Naturally occurring isotopes and geochemical tracers (stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water, stable isotopes of carbon, carbon-14, strontium isotopes, and tritium), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 10 percent of the wells sampled for each analysis, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection, handling, and analytical procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges, with few exceptions. Matrix-spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to finished drinking water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH and with nonregulatory aesthetic and technical benchmarks established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water benchmarks are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with regulatory benchmarks. All organic constituents and most inorganic constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the 30 primary grid wells in the Sierra Nevada study unit were detected at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Of the 150 organic and special-interest constituents analyzed, 21 were detected in groundwater samples; all concentrations were less than regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks, and most were less than 1/10th of benchmark levels. One or more organic constituents were detected in 37 percent of the primary grid wells, and perchlorate was detected in 27 percent of the primary grid wells. Most samples analyzed for inorganic and radioactive constituents had concentrations or activities less than regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks. Nutrients were not detected at concentrations greater than health-based benchmarks. Six of the 30 primary grid wells (20 percent) and 7 of the 53 lithologic grid wells had concentrations of or activities for one or two constituents that were greater than the benchmarks. Constituents present in one or more samples at concentrations or activities greater than health-based benchmarks were arsenic (5 wells, MCL-US), gross alpha particle activity (4 wells, MCL-US), boron (2 wells, NL-CA), fluoride (1 well, MCL-CA), and selenium (1 well, MCL-US). Two of the wells that had high gross alpha particle activities had uranium concentrations (MCL-CA) and uranium activities (MCL-CA) greater than the benchmark levels. Four of the 29 samples analyzed had activities of radon-222 greater than the proposed alternative MCL-US. Most samples analyzed for inorganic constituents that had nonregulatory, aesthetic-based benchmarks (SMCLs) had concentrations less than these benchmarks. Total dissolved solids concentrations were less than the upper SMCL-CA in all 83 primary and lithologic grid well samples, and TDS concentrations were less than the recommended SMCL-CA in 79 of these samples. Manganese concentrations were greater than the SMCL-CA in 2 of the 30 primary grid wells (7 percent) and in 6 of the 53 lithologic grid wells, and iron concentrations were greater than the SMCL-CA in the same 2 primary grid wells and in 5 of the same lithologic grid wells.

California↗
USGS1979

Investigations needed to stimulate the development of Jordan's mineral resources

The level of living that any society can attain is a direct function of the use it makes of all kinds of raw materials (soil, water, metals, nonmetals, etc.), all kinds of energy (both animate and inanimate), and all kinds of human ingenuity; and is an inverse function of the size of the population that must share the collective product. The relation between raw materials, energy and ingenuity is such that use of a large amount of one may offset the need for large amounts of others. The most vital raw materials are water, soil, and construction materials, for these are needed in large quantities and are hard to import. Metals, chemicals, and inanimate energy are necessary for industrialization. The more of these minerals a nation possess, the better, but not nation can hope to be self-sufficient in all of the m and therefore must trade for some essential materials. Jordan’s natural resources have been little explored. The grantitc-metamorphic terrane in the southeastern part of the Kingdom could contain deposits of tungsten, rare earths, feldspar, mica, fluorite etc. and the sedimentary terrane over much of the rest of the county is favorable for the occurrence of oil. Even if none of these minerals is found, however, Jordan’s other mineral resource, if fully explored and developed in the light of modern technology, will support a far higher level of living than her people now enjoy. Very likely she can increase her rainfall by about 10 percent by cloud seeding, and she undeveloped supplies in both surface and ground water that are sufficient to nearly double her usable water supply. Even if she does not have oil or have it in large quantities, she can buy it cheaply from neighboring counties, and in addition has undeveloped sources of hydroelectric power, large reserves of bituminous limestone, large reserves of nuclear power as uranium in phosphate rock, and can use solar and wind power for special purposes. Her large supplies of construction, fertilizer, and other chemical raw materials will not only satisfy her own needs, but will yield both raw materials and some manufactured products for export. And she has valuable resource of touristic interest in the form of incomparable scenery, antiquities, and holy places, which, if properly advertised, could well become her largest single source of foreign currency. Revenues obtained from this source and from the export of agricultural products, nonmetallic minerals, and mineral products should support foreign oil purchase of oil, machinery, and other products not mined or produced internally. Full development of Jordan’s economic potential will take years to achieve and involves many complex activities. One of the most essential is one that can be pressed in the early years, namely the gathering of facts and basic data concerning the character, extent, and distribution of her resources, and the uses that can be made of them. Without each fundamental data or the understanding of their meaning or the ways to use and apply them, costly developmental projects and similar efforts to raise the level of living are likely to have limited success at best. Basic data and mineral resources are best gathered and published by permanent government agencies, for private organizations and individual cannot afford to take the risks involved in gathering data that may not have an immediate economic return; and even if private parties do collect such data they are not likely to make them general available. Of the activities needed in the field of mineral resources, some are already underway as the established function of government agencies. No bureau however, seems to have responsibility for making geologic maps and for gathering data on such things as steam flow, composition and properties of minerals and rocks, or for investigating the uses to which Jordan’s minerals might be put. To satisfy these needs, a Geological Survey and a Bureau of Mineral Industries should be formed and placed in operation as quickly as possible. The task of collecting and interpreting basic data or mineral resources must be done largely by Jordanians, for only in this way will Jordan acquire the technical competence needed to use the information. Few Jordanians have enough training or experience to work independently in these fields now, however, so help from outside technicians would be necessary over an initial training period of several years. But the number of outside technicians should never exceed the number of Jordanian technicians, and for this reason, neither organization could have a staff of more than a few people during the early years of operation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Groundwater quality data for the northern Sacramento Valley, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,180-square-mile Northern Sacramento Valley study unit (REDSAC) was investigated in October 2007 through January 2008 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within REDSAC and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 66 wells in Shasta and Tehama Counties. Forty-three of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 23 were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial constituents. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate, stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen of water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 275 constituents and field water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and sampmatrix spikes) were collected at approximately 8 to 11 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data obtained from the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges for nearly all compounds, indicating acceptably low variability. Matrix-spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with those thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from REDSAC were below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and pesticides were detected in less than one-quarter of the samples and were generally less than a hundredth of any health-based thresholds. NDMA was detected in one grid well above the NL-CA. Concentrations of all nutrients and trace elements in samples from REDSAC wells were below the health-based thresholds except those of arsenic in three samples, which were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). However, none of these wells were public-supply wells. Concentrations of all radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds except radon-222, which was detected above the proposed MCL-US of 300 pCi/L in samples from 11 grid wells. Most of the samples from REDSAC wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic or technical concerns. A few samples contained iron, manganese, or pH at levels above the SMCL-CA or SMCL-US thresholds.

California↗
USGS2009

Groundwater quality data for the Tahoe-Martis study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 460-square-mile Tahoe–Martis study unit was investigated in June through September 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within the Tahoe–Martis study unit (Tahoe–Martis) and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 52 wells in El Dorado, Placer, and Nevada Counties. Forty-one of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 11 were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, strontium isotope ratio, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen of water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 240 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at 12 percent of the wells, and the results obtained from these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that data for the groundwater samples were not compromised by possible contamination during sample collection, handling or analysis. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw water typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate of compliance or noncompliance with regulatory thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from the Tahoe–Martis wells were below drinking-water thresholds. Organic compounds (VOCs and pesticides) were detected in about 40 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than 1/100th of regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds, although the conentration of perchloroethene in one sample was above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). Concentrations of all trace elements and nutrients in samples from grid wells were below regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds, with five exceptions. Concentrations of arsenic were above the MCL-US in 20 percent of the samples from grid wells. Gross alpha particle activity (MCL-US), boron (CDPH notification level, NL-CA), and molybdenum (USEPA lifetime health advisory, HAL-US) were each detected above thresholds in two of the samples from grid wells, and radon (proposed alternative MCL-US) was detected above the threshold in one sample from a grid well. Most of the samples from Tahoe–Martis grid wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant levels, nonenforceable thresholds set for aesthetic and technical concerns. Fifteen percent of the samples from grid wells contained iron, manganese, or total dissolved solids at concentrations above these levels.

California, Nevada↗
USGS1987

Results of a workshop concerning assessment of the functions of bottomland hardwoods

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) to participate in the regulation of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This regulatory authority is exercised in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has responsibility for permit issuance, and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Through amendments to the original statute, a series of legal actions and court decisions, and the development of operating guidance among the responsible agencies, Section 404 has evolved into the primary mechanism afforded Federal authorities for the protection of wetlands. EPA recognizes the importance of wetlands in achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, which are to protect and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. EPA Administrator Lee Thomas has identified wetlands protection as among the highest of Agency priorities. EPA recognizes that bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands have vital and unique attributes that, if lost, would severely impact the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. As part of a broad program to better protect the Nation's wetlands, EPA has therefore identified bottomland hardwood wetlands as a priority resource requiring special attention on a national basis. Recognizing the importance of implementing an effective, nationally consistent, and scientifically defensible regulatory program, EPA, in October 1984, issued Interim Operating Guidance to its field personnel for implementing the Section 404 regulatory program in bottomland hardwood wetlands. With the goal of improving and finalizing that guidance, EPA is sponsoring a series of workshops designed to answer key questions concerning BLH wetlands, based on the best scientific and technical information currently available. The first two workshops were directed toward summarizing existing scientific and technical knowledge concerning the functions of BLH ecosystems, the characteristics that are important to each function, and the impact of various development activities on those characteristics. The first workshop, which was held in St. Francisville, Louisiana, in December, 1984, examined a wetland zonation concept as a framework for gaining a greater understanding of BLH structure and function. The workshop set out to determine whether characterization of BLH resources as a series of relatively distinct zones, defined by concomitant variation in hydrologic regime, soils, and vegetation, might provide the basis for a useful and scientifically sound regulatory framework. For examp1e, if certain zones are of particular importance to one or more wetland functions that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect, then the zonation concept might be useful from the perspective of how various activities should be regulated. Discussions during the first workshop, however, indicated that the zonation concept provides, at best, only an incomplete picture of the structure and function of BLH ecosystems. In many cases, BLH functions are not limited to or closely correlated with particular zones and, furthermore, many factors other than zone are important determinants of BLH functions. With these responses in mind, the second workshop, held at Lake Lanier, Georgia, in July, 1985, was designed to elicit information on two questions. First, if zones are not an adequate framework for understanding the functions of BLH systems, what characteristics (predictors) can be used to assess the extent to which a particular site performs these functions? And second, what are the impacts of various development activities that often occur in BLH ecosystems on those characteristics and thus on the functions themselves? At the second workshop, individual workgroups dealing with particular subject areas (e.g., hydrology, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, ecosystem processes, and cultural/recreational/economic resources) were able to identify site characteristics that are important determinants of the performance of various functions. For example, the Hydrology Workgroup identified flood storage as one of three major hydrologic functions that BLH ecosystems perform. The workgroup then identified the most important characteristic (e.g., surface area of the site, soil saturation, and others) that determine flood storage and the likely impact of several common activities (e.g., conversion to soybean production and levee construction) on these characteristics. Some of the workgroups also provided estimates of the aggregate impact of activities, acting through all of the characteristics, on certain functions. The workgroups also identified key characteristics that could be used to identify high-value wetlands for various functions. In addition, the workgroups pointed out a number of topics needing further examination and discussion. First, all of the workgroups identified the need to develop the technical basis and information sources to address the problem of cumulative impacts in the regulatory process. Second, most of the workgroups noted the important of contextual variables in assessing the function of a particular site. For example, the location of a BLH site in relationship to other tracts of habitat is an important variable for many wildlife species. Similarly, the extent to which a site retains or transforms contaminants is depended not only on the characteristics of the site, but also on its position in a watershed relative to contaminant inputs. And finally, several of the workgroups pointed out that assessing the impact of an activity on a function is not as simple as "adding up" the impact on individual characteristics, but may depend instead on complex interactions among characteristics. Addressing these questions, as summarized in the objectives and discussions that follow, was the focus of the third workshop, the results of which are described in this report.

Report↗
USGS2008

Molt and aging criteria for four North American grassland passerines

Prairie and grassland habitats in central and western North America have declined substantially since settlement by Europeans (Knopf 1994) and many of the birds and other organisms that inhabit North American grasslands have experienced steep declines (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999; Johnson and Igl 1997; Sauer, Hines, and Fallon 2007). The species addressed here, Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii), Grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum) and Baird’s (A. bairdii) sparrows, and Chestnut-collared Longspurs (Calcarius ornatus), are grassland birds that are of special conservation concern throughout their ranges due to declining populations and the loss of the specific grassland habitats required on both their breeding and wintering ranges (Knopf 1994, Davis and Sealy 1998, Davis 2003, Davis 2004, Jones and Dieni 2007). Population-trend data on grassland birds, while clearly showing declines, provides no information on the causes of population declines. Without demographic information (i.e., productivity and survivorship), there are no means to determine when in their life cycle the problems that are creating these declines are occurring, or to determine to what extent population trends are driven by factors that affect birth rates, death rates, or both (DeSante 1995). For migratory birds, population declines may be driven by factors on breeding grounds, during migration, and/or on wintering grounds. Lack of data on productivity and survivorship thus impedes the formulation of effective management and conservation strategies to reverse population declines (DeSante 1992). Furthermore, if deficiencies in survivorship are revealed, management strategies may need to address habitats on both breeding and non-breeding grounds, as well as along migratory pathways. One technique that helps inform management strategies is the biochemical analysis of isotopes and genetic markers, from the sampling of individual feathers from live birds (Smith et al. 2003, Pérez and Hobson 2006; Appendix). Determining demographic parameters and effectively sampling feathers to reveal connectivity between breeding and wintering grounds requires detailed knowledge of molt patterns and age determination criteria for the target species, in the hand. For example, productivity, survivorship, and territory acquisition may all be age-dependent, with first-year birds showing different patterns and responses than older birds. In many cases it may be possible to sample both a feather grown on the breeding grounds and one grown on the wintering grounds from a single individual, but knowledge of age-specific molt patterns, as well as an ability to recognize different feather generations, is needed to accomplish such a task. While some information on molt and aging criteria exists for grassland passerine species (Pyle 1997a), these species have been rarely captured during mark-recapture studies (Jones et al. 2007) and this information thus needs refining. There is a need for additional resources to assist field workers in determining molt patterns and age in captured individuals. Our objective is to describe molt and aging criteria for four grassland passerine species with the aid of digital photographs taken in the field. We hope that this document will be useful for researchers studying grassland species through capture and banding of live individuals on either the breeding or the wintering grounds. We present a general section on molt and aging techniques, followed by specific accounts for the four species treated: Sprague’s Pipits, Grasshopper and Baird sparrows, and Chestnut-collared Longspur. We also provide a brief protocol on collecting feather samples (Appendix).

Biological Technical Publication↗
USGS2009

Groundwater-quality data in the Madera-Chowchilla study unit, 2008: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 860-square-mile Madera–Chowchilla study unit (MADCHOW) was investigated in April and May 2008 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within MADCHOW, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 35 wells in Madera, Merced, and Fresno Counties. Thirty of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and five more were selected to provide additional sampling density to aid in understanding processes affecting groundwater quality (flow-path wells). Detection summaries in the text and tables are given for grid wells only, to avoid over-representation of the water quality in areas adjacent to flow-path wells. Groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], low-level 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane [DBCP] and 1,2-dibromoethane [EDB], pesticides and pesticide degradates, polar pesticides and metabolites, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], perchlorate, and low-level 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (uranium isotopes, and gross alpha and gross beta particle activities). Naturally occurring isotopes and geochemical tracers (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, and activities of tritium and carbon-14), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, approximately 300 constituents and field water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 11 percent of the wells sampled for each analysis, and the results obtained from these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that data for the groundwater samples were not compromised by possible contamination during sample collection, handling or analysis. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only, and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with regulatory thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from MADCHOW wells were below drinking-water thresholds. Organic compounds (VOCs and pesticides) were detected in about 40 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than 1/100 of regulatory or non-regulatory health-based thresholds, although the concentrations of low-level DBCP in 10 percent and low-level EDB in 3 percent of the samples from grid wells were above the corresponding USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCL-USs). Perchlorate was detected in 70 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than one-tenth of the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA). Low-level 1,2,3-TCP was detected in 33 percent of the samples from grid wells, and all concentrations were less than 1/1,000 of the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US). Most concentrations of trace elements and nutrients in samples were below regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds. Concentrations were above the MCL-US for nitrate in 7 percent of the samples from grid wells, for arsenic and uranium in 13 percent each of the samples from grid wells; and the concentration of vanadium was above the CDPH notification level (NL–CA) in 3 percent of the samples from grid wells. Detections of radioactive constituents were below regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds in most samples. Combined activities of uranium isotopes were detected above the MCL-CA in 20 percent of the subset of 25 grid well samples analyzed, and gross alpha particle activity was detected above the MCL-US in 20 percent of the samples from the 30 total grid wells. Most of the samples from MADCHOW grid wells had concentrations of major and minor ions, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL-CAs), which are nonenforceable thresholds set for aesthetic and technical concerns. Twenty percent of the samples from grid wells contained specific-conductance values, or concentrations of chloride, total dissolved solids, or manganese above the respective SMCL–CAs.

California↗
USGS2010

Groundwater-quality data in the Colorado River study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 188-square-mile Colorado River Study unit (COLOR) was investigated October through December 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the technical project lead. The Colorado River study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within COLOR, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 28 wells in three study areas in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. Twenty wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the Study unit; these wells are termed ‘grid wells’. Eight additional wells were selected to evaluate specific water-quality issues in the study area; these wells are termed ‘understanding wells.’ The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], gasoline oxygenates and degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, 1,4-dioxane, and 1,2,3-trichlorpropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents. Concentrations of naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, approximately 220 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at approximately 30 percent of the wells, and the results were used to evaluate the quality of the data obtained from the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a significant source of bias in the data. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges and matrix-spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared to regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and to thresholds established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with those thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples were below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) were detected in approximately 35 percent of grid well samples; all concentrations were below health-based thresholds. Pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in about 20 percent of all samples; detections were below health-based thresholds. No concentrations of constituents of special interest or nutrients were detected above health-based thresholds. Most of the major and minor ion constituents sampled do not have health-based thresholds; the exception is chloride. Concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids detected in some of the well samples were above the nonenforceable thresholds for aesthetic concerns. Concentrations of fluoride were detected in 5 samples (from 4 grid wells and 1 understanding well) above the maximum contaminant level for California (MCL-CA). Concentrations of most of the trace elements in samples from the COLOR study were below health-based thresholds; exceptions included arsenic above the MCL-US, boron above the notification level for California (NL-CA), iron and manganese above the secondary maximum contaminant level for California (SMCL-CA), and molybdenum and strontium above the lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) threshold. Most detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds; exceptions were alpha, uranium, and radon radioactivity. Alpha radioactivity with 72 hour count detections occurred in four grid wells and one understanding well, and 30-day count detections in two grid wells above the MCL-US. Uranium was detected twice in grid wells above the MCL-US threshold. Also, radon-222 was detected at concentrations above the proposed MCL-US in 19 samples (14 grid and 5 understanding wells). No radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US upper threshold.

California↗
USGS2009

Groundwater quality data in the Mojave study unit, 2008: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,500 square-mile Mojave (MOJO) study unit was investigated from February to April 2008, as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). MOJO was the 23rd of 37 study units to be sampled as part of the GAMA Priority Basin Project. The MOJO study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated ground water used for public water supplies within MOJO, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 59 wells in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. Fifty-two of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and seven were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of organic constituents [volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds], constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]) naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, dissolved organic carbon [DOC], major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, radium isotopes, and radon-222). Naturally occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate, and activities of tritium and carbon-14), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 230 constituents and water-quality indicators (field parameters) were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 5–8 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples generally were within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptable analytical reproducibility. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated ground water were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic and technical concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and thresholds for drinking-water are for illustrative purposes only, and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those thresholds. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples in the 59 wells in MOJO were found at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. In MOJO’s 52 grid wells, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in 40 percent of the wells, and pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 23 percent of the grid wells. Results for health-based thresholds in MOJO grid wells showed that all of the detections of organic compounds in samples from MOJO grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of a single detection of NDMA above the California Department of Public Health notification level (NL-CA). Trace elements and radioactive constituents were sampled for at 19 MOJO grid wells and most detections were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include: six detections of arsenic above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US), two detections of boron and one detection of vanadium above the NL-CA, one detection each of molybdenum and strontium that were above the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US), and one detection of fluoride just above the MCL-CA of 2 µg/L. Most detections of radioactive constituents in the MOJO grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of one detection of gross alpha radioactivity (72-hour count and 30-day count) above the MCL-CA, and 17 grid wells (of 19 sampled) that had activities of radon-222 above the proposed MCL-US of 300 pCi/L, but all were below the proposed alternative MCL-US of 4,000 pCi/L. All of the samples collected from the 19 MOJO grid wells for trace elements, and most of the samples for major ions and total dissolved solids (TDS), had measured concentrations below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Four grid wells had TDS concentrations above the California Department of Public Health secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) recommended threshold of 500 mg/L, and three of these wells were also above the SMCL-CA upper threshold of 1,000 mg/L. Four grid wells (of 19 sampled) had sulfate measured at concentrations above the recommended SMCL-CA threshold of 250 mg/L, and one of these detections was also above the upper SMCL-CA threshold of 500 mg/L. One grid well had chloride levels at a concentration above the upper SMCL-CA threshold of 500 mg/L. Eleven grid wells (of 52 sampled) had pH values outside of the SMCL-US range for pH.

California↗