Nation’s River Quality Data Could Power Deeper Science Insights: A new U.S. Geological Survey study reports that almost 60 percent of previously collected nutrient water-quality records for U.S. rivers and streams have missing or ambiguous reference information. This inconsistency limits the use of these data for assessing water quality across large river basins. The study found that nearly 14.5 million of the 25 million records collected since 1899 by nearly 500 public and private organizations at 321,927 sites across the country had missing or ambiguous metadata — the standard descriptive information needed to determine the amount of a chemical present in the sample. “Because individual monitoring organizations understand their own data well, they are able to use the data locally to meet the original goals of data collection,” said Lori Sprague, USGS hydrologist and lead author of the study. “The problem arises when we try to combine data from multiple sources to assess water-quality conditions in large watersheds, such as the Potomac River or Mississippi River basins. Monitoring organizations often report the same metadata elements differently.” Inconsistent information prevents water resources agencies from using massive amounts of data on a broader scale to assess the status and trends of our nation’s rivers. The adoption of standard metadata practices across all monitoring organizations in the United States could increase the amount of water data that can be used to assess water management actions in large watersheds, potentially leading to important water-quality insights that would not otherwise be possible. The study found that metadata on whether specific water samples were filtered or unfiltered was inconclusive for nearly 12 million records. There were over 1.3 million records without data units or with inappropriate units. In addition, wide variations in chemical names and the use of abbreviations require expensive and time-consuming evaluations to determine which chemical was reported. For instance, there are 147 variations of names used for just one constituent, orthophosphate. The USGS study assessed data collected by 488 monitoring organizations — 19 federal agencies; 6 regional (multi-state) organizations; 100 state water, natural resources, or environmental protection agencies; 130 tribal organizations; 108 county or subcounty organizations; 24 academic organizations; 17 non-governmental organizations; 34 volunteer organizations; and 50 private organizations. The USGS is using these multi-agency data to assess long-term trends in water quality of American streams and rivers. The National Water Quality Monitoring Council — federal, tribal, interstate, state, local, and municipal governments, watershed groups and national associations that include volunteer monitoring groups — is developing sets of water quality data elements to facilitate the exchange of water-quality data among multiple agencies. The USGS study, “Challenges with secondary use of multi-source water-quality data in the United States,” can be found online in the journal Water Resources. Additional information on water-quality monitoring and modeling is available on the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment project website. #environment

Long days, fresh ideas, and new connections: USGS scientists sharing science at the 2016 AGU Fall Meeting: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists also broaden their scientific horizons, get ideas for new projects, and plant the seeds for collaborations that might change the way we think about the Earth. Pedestrians cross 4th Street outside the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco while traffic waits at a stoplight. In the foreground are street banners for the AGU Fall Meeting. In the background is the Moscone Convention Center - West building. (Credit: Rex Sanders, USGS. Public domain.) For the 2016 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting, our scientists plan to give over 400 presentations to the largest gathering of Earth scientists in the world. The talks and posters span a wide range of topics, from reducing greenhouse gases by restoring wetlands, to extreme El Niño beach erosion in California, to earthquake early warning systems, including a late-breaking session on Oklahoma’s largest recorded earthquake. USGS scientists have attended this conference for nearly 50 years, presenting keynote addresses, organizing sessions, and contributing scientific findings. New scientists gain valuable exposure and expand their professional networks. Side meetings with colleagues save travel time and money better spent on research. While our scientists are gearing up for this year’s meeting, we look back to the 2015 AGU Fall Meeting, attended by 24,000 scientists from around the world, including several hundred from USGS. Looking down on a large room crowded with people checking out AGU Fall Meeting posters on long rows of boards. (Credit: Rex Sanders, USGS. Public domain.) These USGS scientists choose to spend long days far from home because they want to share their science, and for many other reasons. “The rest of the scientific community just really values our presence and our contributions at these conferences,” said USGS hydrologist Chris Magirl. USGS scientists Halley Kimball (left) and Chris Magirl conduct a bathymetric survey of the Cedar River in western Washington.(Credit: Christiana Czuba, USGS. Public domain.) Sharing science with 24,000 people USGS scientists gave more than 500 formal presentations at the 2015 AGU Fall Meeting. Conference topics ranged from atmospheric processes to volcanology; sessions started early Sunday morning and ran through Friday evening. Here are some perspectives from our scientists who participated in last year’s meeting. How do you tell people what to expect from a creeping disaster? That was the subject of a poster by Christina Neal, a volcanologist and scientist-in-charge at the USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) on the island of Hawai’i. For nine months, lava flows threatened Pāhoa Village and the only road serving thousands of people. “The USGS scientists were personally talking to emergency managers and talking to residents whose homes were threatened by this lava flow,” said Neal. “I've heard from so many people that the way HVO scientists were able to [communicate], both in writing and in front of large public community meetings, went a long way in helping people cope with this extended, slow motion disaster.” Benjamin Jones is a USGS research geographer working in Anchorage, Alaska. A tundra fire had burned roughly 400 square miles (1,000 square kilometers), including an area covered by detailed LIDAR elevation data gathered before and after the blaze. Jones and his colleagues discovered that one third of the permafrost in the burned area had melted and collapsed, because the fire incinerated vegetation and soil that insulated the permafrost. USGS research geographer Ben Jones is dressed warmly as he stands next to portable core-drilling device in a snow-covered area. (Credit: USGS. Public domain.) “This was basically the first study that demonstrated the potential impact of tundra fires on cold permafrost terrain in the Arctic,” he said about his popular poster. “[I was] just constantly talking for five and a half, six hours,” said Jones. Many presentations at the conference covered the powerful Nepal earthquake of April 25, 2015. Susan Hough, a USGS geophysicist and seismologist in Pasadena, California, helped arrange one session on short notice for the December conference. Susan Hough, a USGS geophysicist and seismologist, climbs a metal ladder going to the roof of a building. Below her and in the background are other people, forest, and fog. (Credit: USGS. Public domain.) “Everyone had been aware that Nepal was going to be hit by magnitude 8-ish earthquakes,” Hough said. “There was a lot of concern for the damage and the death toll that would be caused by an earthquake like that.” “The question is ‘why wasn’t the damage even worse?’” said Hough. “It’s something that people are going to be working on for a long time.” Conference organizers also invited Hough to give an “Ignite” talk one evening on the how the earthquake defied expectations. “It’s kind of like a poor man’s TED talk,” Hough said. “And you’re supposed to give this bang-up, gee-whiz science talk in five minutes. Like speed dating.” Her presentation ended around 8:30 pm, capping another long day at the conference. Long, full days With thousands of presentations to choose from, and tens of thousands of potential collaborators to meet, everyone attending the AGU Fall Meeting has a unique schedule. For most scientists, the days are a non-stop blur of giving talks and attending talks, cruising the poster aisles, and talking shop over quickly eaten meals. USGS scientists pack as much as they can into each day and evening. Attendees at the AGU Fall Meeting take a break for morning refreshments. A crowd of people in a large room with snacks and drinks on tables in the foreground. (Credit: Rex Sanders, USGS. Public domain.) Chris Magirl, a USGS hydrologist and research manager stationed in Tucson, Arizona, described one day at the conference. “I woke up, went over to the diner, and got an omelet. I got to Moscone [Convention Center] about 8:30, and saw Jim O’Connor’s talk on sediment transport and sediment load. Many colleagues and friends were giving talks throughout that session. I gave a talk at 11:20. We went out and got some lunch, and then headed back to a poster session in the afternoon. It wrapped up at 5:00. Then a couple of colleagues and I got some dinner and talked science at a Thai place. I got back to the hotel room around 8:00 or 9:00 to get some rest before doing it all over again the next day.” USGS geologist and Mendenhall post-doctoral fellow Jessica Ball commuted to the conference by train. USGS geologist and Mendenhall post-doctoral fellow Jessica Ball wears a safety vest and gloves while sitting on the bumper of an SUV filled with scientific instruments. (Credit: USGS. Public domain.) “Got up very early. Worked on the notes for my presentation while I was on the train. Walked in here and immediately started going to hydrothermal sessions. Then I met up with a few colleagues for lunch and went to posters in the afternoon. Spent a lot of time talking about people’s research at their posters. Zipped by the Exhibit Hall when I needed a break from talking, and then went to the blogging and social media forums.” That evening, Ball attended three receptions, including one for early career female scientists, before catching a late train home. New ideas and collaborations Nearly every day, USGS scientists at the AGU Fall Meeting learned new things, generated fresh ideas, and planted seeds for future work. Benjamin Jones talked with scientists planning an international project to study coastlines influenced by permafrost. He also learned about structure from motion, a technique for making detailed elevation maps from air photos. “That’s probably my one take-home,” said Jones. “I should look into that more.” Susan Hough chatted with an oil industry scientist about induced earthquakes in Texas. “It’s got me thinking it might be worth stepping back from Oklahoma and looking at Texas and Arkansas,” she said. One talk surprised Jessica Ball during a session she helped organize. “They figured out that a whole bunch of lava domes had formed on this undersea volcano in something like a matter of days or weeks,” she said. “I didn’t realize that you could have lava domes that are underwater, and that they can form that quickly.” Despite being a well-known blogger and Twitter user, Ball doesn’t believe that apps are the only answer. “I don’t think you make good connections and really form collaborations unless it’s in person. Humans work better with other humans. They don’t work quite as well through technology.” Why attend AGU? Working long days away from home, after wading through a thicket of meeting and travel approvals, would not qualify as fun for most people. Yet USGS scientists return to the AGU Fall Meeting year after year. Ball said the 2014 conference was the most exciting. She was part of a round table for early career scientists that included Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, acting USGS director Suzette Kimball, and Carol Finn, AGU’s president. “I got to have this amazing opportunity to sit down with these three women and talk about my science, why it was important, and where it fit into [the Department of the] Interior’s mission,” said Ball. For Benjamin Jones, working in the 49th state can be a little isolating. The AGU Fall Meeting is “a good venue to get together with other people and other USGS scientists, and talk about some of our research and potential future plans,” he said. “I like to branch out and go see a talk or two that I don’t really know anything about,” said Jones, “with the hopes that it’ll give me a new way of thinking about something I’m working on.” Christina Neal attended the conference to learn the latest science and meet the top scientists in many different fields. “It feels good to be around all of your peers hearing the best of your peers,” said Neal. She saved travel time and money, too. Neal spent a day before the conference at the USGS office in Sacramento, California, meeting with human resources staff to plan future hires. Chris Magirl found other sources of inspiration. “You have a deep appreciation of how ubiquitous and well-respected the USGS is,” he said. “It's hard to walk down a poster aisle and not see a USGS logo on one, or two, or three posters.” “We really have a fantastic presence, and a fantastic reputation that's been established by wonderful scientists,” said Magirl. “That’s a proud thing to be part of.” Looking down on the large poster hall at the AGU Fall Meeting. Many rows of posters on boards with people reading and walking. (Credit: Rex Sanders, USGS. Public domain.) Hard work and a lot of fun: The USGS booth at the AGU Fall Meeting It’s a lot more work than you might imagine. Liz Colvard has run the US Geological Survey (USGS) exhibit booth at the annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting for more than a decade. A program and information specialist with the USGS Office of Communications and Publishing in Menlo Park, California, Colvard starts preparing for next year’s booth a couple of weeks after the previous meeting wraps up. Colvard sat down for a short interview just after opening the booth on the last day of the 2015 meeting in San Francisco. The interview was edited for length and clarity. Liz Colvard (left) and Kristin Ludwig staff the USGS booth at the 2015 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. The booth has tables with handouts, vertical panels with displays, and a video screen.(Credit: Rex Sanders, USGS. Public domain.) What can people find at the USGS booth? The meat of our content is in the handouts and in the people that staff it and answer questions. Most people who come to AGU are already fairly familiar with USGS. There’s a huge focus on new publications that are of interest to this audience, so I’ve got a lot of new publications on display, and we’re giving away copies, or else telling them how to find them online. There are just a few informational handouts that we know people are going to ask [about] every year. You have a video rolling silently in the background. What’s playing? When people are walking past your booth, you’ve got about 5 seconds to catch their attention. I ask [USGS video producer] Steve Wessells to put together a highlight video. Sometimes you’ll see people glance at the video and then do a double take because something has caught their eye. People very rarely stand there and watch [the whole thing]. What kinds of questions do you get? These are generally professional scientists with pretty straightforward questions. They need to find some information and they don’t know where to find it. Or they need to make some kind of professional connection with the USGS and they don't know who to contact, or how to navigate a website. I’d say about 40 to 50 percent of our questions are about employment. How many visitors did you get this year? The first night, the icebreaker session, was a feeding frenzy. As many as three to five hundred people came to the booth. We gave away 150 copies of one map within the first hour or so. How do you staff the booth? We always try to have at least one information specialist in the booth. Here at AGU it’s usually either me or Jan Nelson from EROS [Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.] Then we recruit about two scientists to help handle all the people. Often we get science questions that they can answer and we can’t. The scientists in the booth are volunteers? Yes, I send out a call about a week or two before the conference and ask for volunteers [from USGS scientists already attending AGU]. I usually get all the people I need. How do you prepare for AGU? It’s a very detail-oriented job, and I am a very detail-oriented person. I think spreadsheets are gifts from the gods. Beginning in January, I keep track of all the new publications that come out of USGS.  Then about three to four months before the conference I’ll start reviewing that and seeing which publications might be good to have in the booth. AGU is mostly about hazards, water, and satellite imagery. Mapping is always of interest to everybody. I create a handout listing all the new and featured products that we have in the booth with our [web addresses] so somebody can just take that piece of paper. I made a special employment handout this time. Every year I keep track of how many copies of everything we give out, so I know next year how many I need. It’s a lot of work. If all of our information is available online, why do we need a booth? Sure, it’s all online, but who’s ever going to know it’s there, or where to find it? Even I discover things about our website that I don’t even know existed. Do you have to do a lot of work to set up the booth? We came in on Sunday and we set up the booth for about five hours. Then we came in on Monday and spent another three hours finishing up. There’s a real science to laying out an exhibit, because people tend to only see what's flat on the table. You want to put all the most important information flat on the table and then the less important information up on the racks. Jan Nelson (left) and Liz Colvard staff the USGS booth at the 2015 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. Peter Haeussler is shown on the video screen. The booth has a table with handouts and vertical panels with displays.(Credit: Rex Sanders, USGS. Public domain.) Every morning I come in one to two hours before the conference starts. I get our computers set up and I clean up from the previous day. The USGS booth is right across from NASA’s very large booth. What’s that like? I very deliberately picked a space facing NASA because they are the hub of all activity in the exhibit hall. Our booth gets so much more business when we’re right by NASA than when we’re down on one of the aisles. Do you enjoy this? I love it! I enjoy chatting with people and having that face-to-face interaction with the public. Sometimes people are so excited with the information that you’ve given them. People love the USGS. It makes you feel good about your job. Anything else people should know about our booth? Most of the scientists who volunteer to work in our booth, when they leave, they say things like, "That was a lot of fun, I didn’t realize," or, "I've learned so much about the USGS doing this." I don’t think our scientists realize what a great opportunity it is for them when they work in the booth, how much they learn and get out of it, and how rewarding it can be for them. #environment

Media Advisory: SF Bay-Delta Conference - Science for Solutions: Every two years, more than a thousand scientists, engineers and resource managers meet in Sacramento to exchange ideas, learn about problem-solving science, and explore creative solutions to myriad problems plaguing the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary. Brought together by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Delta Stewardship Council, this broad community that works diligently on Bay-Delta issues, will explore the theme of “Science for Solutions: Linking Data and Decisions” at the 9th Biennial Bay-Delta Science Conference. Protection of the Bay-Delta ecosystem is at a pivotal point. The system has endured devastating drought cycles and often competing priorities that seek to supply water for both cities and farms as well as improve the aquatic ecosystem for fisheries, recreation and tourism. Achieving these co-equal goals requires science that expands our knowledge of ecosystem responses, produces data that directly supports decisions, and builds long-term, resilient solutions. The conference features oral and poster presentations that provide scientific information and ideas relevant to species and community ecology, water quality and fishes, sustainable habitats and ecosystems, and water and ecosystem quality. What: 9th Biennial Bay-Delta Science Conference Science for Solutions: Linking Data and Decisions Who: The best and brightest scientists at the forefront of their fields, from public and private institutions, working on issues that confront the Bay-Delta today When: Tuesday – Thursday, November 15-17, 2016 Where: Sacramento Convention Center 1400 J Street, Sacramento, California   Highlights of the conference include: - Special session on the new report: “State of Bay-Delta Science, 2016” (Wed., 10:20 a.m.). - Contaminant Issues in the Bay-Delta (Thur., 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.). - Special event: “The Art of Data Visualization” (Thur., 12:15 – 1:00 p.m.). - Climate, Drought and Water Management (Thur., 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.).   A full program is online.   #environment

The Science of Harmful Algae Blooms: Cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (CyanoHABs, often abbreviated simply as HABs) are increasingly a global concern. CyanoHABs can threaten human and aquatic ecosystem health; they can cause major economic damage. The toxins produced by some species of cyanobacteria (called cyanotoxins) cause acute and chronic illnesses in humans. HABs can adversely affect aquatic ecosystem health, both directly through the presence of these toxins and indirectly through the low dissolved oxygen concentrations and changes in aquatic food webs caused by an overabundance of cyanobacteria. Economic damages related to cyanoHABs include the loss of recreational revenue, decreased property values, and increased drinking-water treatment costs. Nationwide, toxic cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms have been implicated in human and animal illness and death in at least 43 states. In August 2016, at least 19 states had public health advisories because of cyanoHABs (USEPA, 2016). What are Cyanobacteria? Cyanobacteria are naturally occurring microscopic organisms. Although they are true bacteria, they function more like algae in aquatic ecosystems. Thus they are typically considered to be part of algal communities (this explains why they often are called blue-green algae). Cyanobacterial blooms may appear as discolorations in the water or paint-like scums at the water-surface. Typically, the blooms are blue-green in color, but they also may be yellow, red, or brown. Cyanobacteria are notorious for producing a variety of compounds that cause water-quality concerns. Cyanobacteria produce taste-and-odor compounds that people are sensitive to at very low concentrations (even parts per trillion) in drinking water. Taste-and-odor compounds may accumulate in fish flesh making it unpalatable, an important concern for the aquaculture industry. Of greater concern is the production of the toxins that affect human health. Human ingestion, inhalation, or contact with water containing elevated concentrations of cyanotoxins can cause allergic reactions, dermatitis, gastroenteritis, and seizures. Examples of science insights The ability for cyanobacteria to produce cyanotoxins as well as taste-and-odor compounds is caused by genetic distinctions at the subspecies level of the bacteria. By analyzing those distinctions, we can gain a greater understanding of the world of cyanoHABs, an understanding that may lead us to new ways to combat this threat. USGS is developing field and laboratory methods to quantify cyanobacterial and associated compounds that include field protocols, field guides, sample preparation techniques, development of assays, and molecular tools. Aphanizomenon, dolichospermum (anabaena), microcystis, and planktothrix are some of the more commonly occurring cyanobacteria that have the potential to produce cyanotoxins and taste-and-odor compounds.   Nutrient Enrichment: A Key Factor in Occurrences of CyanoHABs One of the key causes of cyanoHABs is nutrient enrichment. When nutrients from agricultural and urban areas are transported downstream, they can cause cyanoHABs in reservoirs, which can impair drinking-water quality and result in closures of recreational areas. The USGS, in cooperation with local, state, federal, tribal, and university partners, is pioneering new monitoring, assessment, and modeling approaches to better understand nutrient sources, their transport, and their role in toxic cyanoHABs. Tracking the Water Quality of the Nation’s Streams and Rivers The USGS monitors nutrient concentrations and flux at key sites nationwide. Annual data are featured at the website, Tracking Water Quality of the Nation's Rivers and Streams. In addition, the USGS uses advanced optical sensor technology to track nitrate levels in real time at about 135 sites nationwide. These data provide real-time information, improve load calculations, and advance our understanding of processes controlling nutrient variability. The data are publicly available at the website, WaterQuality Watch. Recognizing that Native Americans and Alaska Natives that depend on subsistence fishing have an increased risk of exposure to cyanotoxins, the USGS has produced a special field guide to HABs for these communities.  Identifying Nutrient Sources and Hotspots USGS models of nutrient concentrations and loads in streams provide an important tool for identifying nutrient sources. Estimates derived from these models provide insights into which areas and sources are contributing the largest amounts of nutrients to local streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The models also enable the tracking of nutrients and their sources from local streams to the Nation’s estuaries and the Great Lakes. See website, Tracking the Source and Quantity of Nutrients to the Nation's Estuaries.   Information sources: USGS Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Bloom science USGS Fact Sheet, 2016 — Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms and U.S. Geological Survey Science Capabilities Real Time Water-Quality Watch       Real time measurements nationwide for water temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nitrate, and chlorophyll. Field and laboratory guide to freshwater cyanobacteria harmful algal blooms for Native American and Alaska Native communities (USGS, 2015)  Press release. USGS Podcast, 2010 — Slimy Summer Swimming: Harmful Algal Blooms in Lakes, Rivers and Streams USGS Publications on Cyanobacteria Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy – An Interagency Report to Congress (Feb. 2016)    A comprehensive research strategy that outlines the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies for evaluating and managing HABs and hypoxia. USGS is the lead agency for scientific research in this field. Information on Federal Agencies' Expenditures and Coordination Related to Harmful Algae (GAO report, Oct. 2016) #environment

Imaging the Past: Today, with Landsats 7 and 8 in orbit, Landsat 9 being built, the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-2a aloft, Sentinel-2b soon following, and flocks of new microsats imaging our planet, we acquire richer and more plentiful information about Earth’s land surface than ever before. Amid this wealth of contemporary Earth data, scientists still ask: Compared to what? How do we know the range of ways that Earth may be changing unless we have a record of previous conditions? To better understand the present, how can we better image the past? Since July 1972, satellites in the Landsat program have been imaging the landmasses of our planet at a particularly useful scale that shows us both natural and manmade changes. Landsat is the only satellite system that has recorded Earth’s land-surface conditions for over four decades. This longevity — this steady, unblinking gaze from space — has made the Landsat data record an essential foundation for global change research. The National Science and Technology Council has endorsed the value of Landsat data. In a study the council conducted in 2014 about the value of U.S. observation systems to the American public, they ranked the Landsat program as number three, just behind the much better known GPS and weather radar systems. Knowing the worth of this specialized knowledge, it is hard to imagine that nearly two-thirds of the Landsat data collected in the three and a half decades between 1972 and 1999 was, until recently, completely inaccessible. Expanding history With Landsats 7 and 8 now active, it’s no surprise that the archive of current U.S. Earth observation data is growing rapidly. Combined, the satellites collect about 1,200 scenes that take up about 1 terabyte of data every day. What is surprising is that you can now find much, much more historical Landsat data than ever before in the Landsat archive at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, or EROS, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. But the past has passed, someone might say. How is it possible for historical records of the land to actually expand? Because a massive international collaboration has been afoot since 2010 to recover historical data, allowing EROS to, in essence, image the past.  While the recovered information from around the globe doesn’t necessarily change history, it does expand the known record to sharpen our perspective of natural and human changes on the land, especially in some remote areas.  To explain, let’s imagine some rough parallels in records of American history. If several new contemporary accounts of the Plymouth Colony had been found or if a new trove of letters written by George Washington had been uncovered, the new information wouldn’t necessarily change history, but it would certainly strengthen our confidence in understanding the historical conditions and context of those settings. Now, about this historical Landsat data: Why was it inaccessible? How was it recovered and re-assembled? Data from space: more difficult than it appears The latest incarnation in the Landsat series, Landsat 8 (launched in February 2013), operates with all of the advantages of forty-plus years of technological advancement. Every image Landsat 8 collects makes its way directly into the U.S archive at EROS where the data are processed and immediately made available for anyone in the world with an internet connection to download at no charge. When Landsat 1 took to the sky in 1972, it did not have the benefit of our modern recording and downlinking technologies. Landsats 1, 2, and 3 flew with two wideband video tape recorders — behemoth machines that each weighed 76 pounds. Each contained enough two-inch wide magnetic tape to stretch the length of six football fields. Their data storage capacity was 3.75 gigabytes, the largest recording capacity of any orbiting recorder at the time. The next generation of Landsat satellites deliberately avoided onboard recorders, opting instead for the new tracking and data relay satellite system (TDRSS) technology. For various reasons, the system was not fully operational until 1989. By then a private operator was running the satellite mission, and commercial reasons led to gaps in international data coverage. There was, however, a saving grace for worldwide historical Landsat data. As part of the U.S. effort to foster goodwill, share data, and encourage peaceful use of outer space, the U.S. offered other countries the opportunity to build International Ground Stations and operate them as International Cooperators (ICs). The ICs installed suitable antennae and set up their own data archives. The U.S. provided technical specifications and engineering support to the ICs and initiated regular meetings. After the first ground station operators meeting took place at Johnson Space Center in Texas in 1975, regular meetings continued and the list of ICs evolved into an international community. From the very beginning, year-after-year, ICs collected and archived their local data. Year-after-year, more ICs joined the community. During the long life of the Landsat program, its earlier data were often too costly and too computationally expensive to allow global studies to be conducted. The full potential of the chronological span of the data had been locked away in IC holdings, as if it were in ice waiting for technology and policy to let it thaw. Recognizing the immense importance of this hidden treasure of historical data, the Landsat Science Team formally requested that USGS consolidate the global archive. Thus, in 2010, the Landsat Global Archive Consolidation project, known by the unmelodious acronym LGAC, was born. Some 35 international ground stations operated by 22 ICs had collected data during the last 44 years. They all now agreed to participate in LGAC. The logistics of making it happen That the ICs had preserved so much historical Landsat data demonstrated a basic, mutual understanding of Landsat’s significance as an historical record of Earth’s surface. However, the data had to be readable to become part of the historical record.   The condition of the decades-old data varied from station to station. Some stations had independently transferred their data to modern media, but other stations were not able to do that sent their old physical media to EROS. Crates of Landsat data from Pakistan await recovery process at USGS EROS. After receiving the data from the ICs, USGS had to move the data into their archive. The challenges fell into two main camps: (1) reading the data off of the physical media that was often badly deteriorated, and (2) translating the formatted data into a form that can be ingested and processed into a standard data product. None of this was easy. For a fuller description of the restoration process, see longer companion article at NASA website. Better together: A complete archive As Landsat Science Team member Mike Wulder wrote, “The recovery rate has been impressive as a result of the skill and ingenuity of the technical experts at EROS.”   As of September 30, 2016, the U.S. archive contained 6,991,828 images — 3.9 million of those are historic images ingested in the last few years thanks to LGAC efforts. To put that into perspective, Landsat 5, a Guinness World Record holder for its 29-year life span, collected 2.5 million images. In a sense, the LGAC effort has served as the equivalent of a separate Landsat mission — or two — in collecting Earth data from the past.  The recent land history of Earth — from 1972 as seen from space by Landsat satellites — is now drawn in much richer detail.  Fuller global-scale investigations for a four decade-plus period are now possible because of LGAC, even as an additional two million historical images still wait to be added to the archive.   Some noteworthy images from the Landsat Gloabl Archive Consolidation (LGAC) and their receiving International Ground Station location. Learn more Longer companion article at NASA Landsat website Wulder, et al.  "The global Landsat archive: Status, consolidation, and direction."  Remote Sensing of Environment, Nov. 2016, pp. 271-83.  Special Issue of Remote Sensing of Environment on Landsat 8 enhancements USGS Landsat NASA Landsat ____________________ The U.S. Geological Survey salutes America View on Earth Observation Day – October 11. #environment

Comprehensive Study finds Widespread Mercury Contamination Across Western North America: An international team of scientists led by the U.S. Geological Survey, recently documented widespread mercury contamination in air, soil, sediment, plants, fish, and wildlife at various levels across western North America. They evaluated potential risk from mercury to human, fish, and wildlife heath, and examined resource management activities that influence this risk. Field sampling boat with USGS PFD against the shore in the Great Salt Lake wetlands.Collin Eagles-Smith, USGSPublic domain “Mercury is widespread in the environment, and under certain conditions poses a substantial threat to environmental health and natural resource conservation,” said Collin Eagles-Smith, USGS ecologist and team lead. “We gathered decades of mercury data and research from across the West to examine patterns of mercury and methylmercury in numerous components of the western landscape. This effort takes an integrated look at where mercury occurs in western North America, how it moves through the environment, and the processes that influence its movement and transfer to aquatic food chains.” More than 80 percent of fish consumption advisories posted in the United States and Canada are wholly or partially because of mercury.  Fish consumption provides many health benefits to people, but the presence of mercury at high concentrations in fish can reduce some of those benefits. Balancing the protection of human health from mercury while also communicating health benefits associated with fish consumption requires detailed information about the distribution of mercury among fish species and across various aquatic systems. Old growth forest in coastal Oregon serves as habitat to the Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet. USFWS photo.David Patte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “The movement of mercury through the western landscape - traveling between the air, ground, and water to plants, animals, and ultimately humans, is extremely complex,” said Eagles-Smith. “This series of articles helps further our understanding of the processes associated with that complexity in western North America, highlights where knowledge gaps still exist, and provides information to resource managers that will help with making informed, science-based management and regulatory decisions.” Effective management of environmental health risks associated with mercury goes beyond controlling the sources, and could be improved by development of tools to control the production of methylmercury and its bioaccumulation through the food web, ultimately affecting animals and humans. ”This effort provides critical information on mercury pathways to humans and wildlife that government regulators, lawmakers, and the public can use to make decisions,” adds David Evers, Executive Director of Biodiversity Research Institute and co-organizer of the effort. “It builds upon the Northeastern and Great Lakes regional efforts that collected and analyzed environmental mercury data that were often separated by sample type.” Oregon Coast Range at dawn in the fog.  Used with permission from Kelly J. James Photography.Kelly J.James, Kelly J. James Photography Key findings of the report include: Methylmercury contamination in fish and birds is common in many areas throughout the West, and climate and land cover are some important factors influencing mercury contamination and availability to animals Fish and birds in many areas were found to have mercury concentrations above levels that have been associated with toxic effects Patterns of methylmercury exposure in fish and wildlife across the West differed from patterns of inorganic mercury on the landscape Some ecosystems and species are more sensitive to mercury contamination, and local environmental conditions are important factors influencing the creation and transfer of methylmercury through the food web Forest soils typically contain more inorganic mercury than soils in semi-arid environments, yet the highest levels of methylmercury in fish and wildlife occurred in semi-arid areas Vegetation patterns strongly influence the amount of mercury emitted to the atmosphere from soils Forested areas retain mercury from the atmosphere, whereas less vegetated areas tend to release mercury to the atmosphere Land disturbances, such as urban development, agriculture, and wildfires, are important factors in releasing inorganic mercury from the landscape, potentially making it available for biological uptake Land and water management activities can strongly influence how methylmercury is created and transferred to fish, wildlife, and humans   Mercury and Methylmercury Mercury, also known by its chemical symbol Hg, is a naturally-occurring metal that can pose a threat to humans, fish, and wildlife when exposed to high levels of its most toxic form, methylmercury. Methylmercury is created from inorganic mercury in aquatic ecosystems by bacteria. This is a complex process that only occurs under the right conditions for the bacteria to thrive. Therefore, the movement of inorganic mercury from the atmosphere or land to the water does not always result in equivalent levels of methylmercury in fish and wildlife unless the environmental condition is favorable for methylmercury production. Methylmercury is easily accumulated by fish, wildlife, and humans from their diet; primarily affecting the nervous and reproductive systems, and is particularly harmful during the developmental stages of life. It increases in concentration up the food chain, reaching its highest levels in predators and long-lived species. Because methylmercury readily accumulates through the food chain, exposure patterns in fish and wildlife reflect where local conditions favor the creation of methylmercury.     Map of major land cover classes across western North America derived from National Land Cover Database (http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php), and North American Land Change Monitoring System Land Cover Atlas (http://www.cec.org/tools-and-resources/map-files/land-cover-2010). Sources, Storage, Transport, and Re-release In the West, the distribution of mercury is a reflection of the diversity of sources combined with a landscape defined by extremes in climate, land cover, and habitat type. These characteristics of the western landscape influence mercury storage, chemical transformation, and buildup through the food chain. Mercury enters the landscape from the atmosphere, natural geologic sources, historic mining activities, and re-released mercury stored in vegetation and soils. Atmospheric mercury sources are primarily direct natural emissions, such as volcanic eruptions; direct man-made emissions, such as fossil fuel emissions; and re-release from plants and soils. Mercury from the atmosphere makes its way back to earth through precipitation, dust particles, or direct uptake by plants through their leaves. Densely forested areas, such as those found along the Pacific coastal mountain ranges, collect substantial amounts of mercury because they receive high amounts of precipitation. The deposited mercury easily binds to vegetation and rich forest soils. Soil mercury concentrations in these forests are on average 2.5 times higher than those in dry semi-arid environments. Similarly, waterbodies located in these forests have among the highest concentrations of inorganic mercury in their sediments. Mercury Released from Soils Soil-bound mercury can also move in the opposite direction, from land to the atmosphere. Much of the mercury emitted from the soil is re-release from previously deposited or “old” mercury. The amount of mercury released from soils varies across the region and is dependent upon vegetation patterns, which are important because these patterns affect both soil moisture and the amount of sunlight that reaches the soil – two factors associated with mercury release from soils. In drier regions with less plant cover, the amount of mercury deposited from the atmosphere is similar to the amount released from soils, suggesting that these areas do not store mercury. In contrast, densely forested areas receive several times more mercury through atmospheric deposition than what is re-emitted to the atmosphere. As a result, western forests tend to provide long-term storage for inorganic mercury whereas much of the mercury deposited across the vast areas of sparsely vegetated semi-arid lands throughout the West either returns back into the atmosphere or becomes available for transport to aquatic ecosystems. Mercury Released from Wildfires Wildfire is one of the largest sources of re-released soil mercury to the atmosphere. The amount of mercury released during a wildfire depends on the size of the burned area, the amount of mercury stored in plants and soil, and the severity of burning. High severity fires, or  fires that cause greater physical change in an area, release greater amounts of mercury than low severity fires because they burn more fuel and make the soil hotter. Although high severity fires release more stored mercury into the atmosphere, lower severity fires may leave behind mercury in soils in a form that can more easily be moved to aquatic ecosystems and converted to methylmercury. With the increasing rate and severity of wildfires in the West associated with a changing climate, there could be an increase in movement of mercury that has been stored for centuries. Malakoff Diggins, Nevada County, California. Hearst Mining Collection of Views.  Used with permission of Bancroft Library, University of California-Berkeley. Legacy Mining in the West The West has rich geologic deposits of naturally occurring mercury, as well as gold and silver, where mercury was historically used to extract these valuable elements from rock formations. Historical mining and ore processing for these metals released extensive amounts of mercury into the environment, contaminating lake and river sediments downstream of mining operations. As a result, many of the highest levels of sediment mercury concentrations across the West are associated with legacy gold, silver, and mercury mines. However, the influence of mining on downstream mercury concentrations is most noticeable in small watersheds, because the amount of mercury from mining in larger watersheds is a fraction of what is contributed by other sources and processes such as atmospheric deposition, land disturbance, and erosion of less contaminated soils. Land Use and Development Agriculture and urban land development are more widespread across the West than mining, and those land uses have a large influence on the amount of mercury released from soils. As a result, lakes receiving runoff from agricultural or urbanized watersheds show higher rates of mercury accumulation in their sediments than lakes in undisturbed areas. The accumulation rate of mercury in lake sediments, calculated from sediment cores dated from to 1800-2010,  showed the highest rate during the last decade (2000-2010) than at any time since the industrial revolution, and approximately five times higher than during pre-industrial times (1800 to 1850). Controlled burn at Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge.Public domain Landscape disturbance; such as wildfire, resource extraction, and land development, is a major component to the widespread movement of inorganic mercury to aquatic sediment throughout waterbodies of the West. However, mercury levels in fish and wildlife do not always match the levels of inorganic mercury because of the requirement for inorganic mercury to be converted to methylmercury before accumulating up the food chain. “Methylmercury production is a complex microbial process that requires specific environmental conditions,” said Mark Marvin-DiPasquale, USGS microbiologist and co-organizer of the synthesis. “Only a small amount of the inorganic mercury is available to be made into methylmercury by bacteria, and under the right conditions even this small amount can result in methylmercury levels that pose a threat to fish, aquatic birds, and human health.” As a result, sediment inorganic mercury concentrations alone often do not accurately indicate how much mercury makes its way into the animals living in the associated environment and ultimately, humans who may consume those animals.   Managing Mercury Risk to Wildlife and Humans Kokanee below culvert in Boise River Basin.  USFS photo. Western North America supports many fish and wildlife communities, several of which are threatened by habitat loss or other factors, including exposure to methylmercury. Fish are indicators of methylmercury contamination because they are an important link in the food chain for both wildlife and humans. Fish and wildlife also are indicators of methylmercury availability over many months to years in the food chain. Mercury contamination of fish and birds is widespread across the West, but the patterns of exposure do not fully match patterns of inorganic mercury distribution in soils and sediments. Although the highest levels of inorganic mercury in soil are found in forested areas, the highest levels of methylmercury in fish and wildlife tend to occur in more arid regions of the West such as the Great Basin. Many existing guidelines and regulations around mercury focus on inorganic mercury in soils and sediments. The combination of inorganic mercury movement, methylmercury creation, and how long mercury stays in the food chain are some of the challenges to managing methylmercury risk to animals and humans. More than half of the land, lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands in the West are publically owned or managed, much by the federal government. Natural resource management for both conservation and resource extraction can have a particularly strong influence on how mercury is transported over land, through water, and transferred to fish, wildlife, and humans. Water and its management is a defining characteristic of the western landscape. It is among the continent’s most complex and widespread resource management challenges and has greatly influenced land use, development, and natural resource conservation. The need to store and transport water for shared ecological, agricultural, and human needs has resulted in complex networks of dams and man-made waterways that have transformed the western landscape and dramatically changed the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of river systems, and in some cases influenced the movement of mercury through these systems. Wetlands, lakes, and rivers can all promote the creation of methylmercury, and seasonal flow and flood patterns of the West result in numerous locations where methylmercury can be created. These habitats are also often important environments that are critical feeding areas for many fish and wildlife species. Management of water flows and storage throughout the West can influence methylmercury creation in these aquatic habitats and can have a strong impact on the degree of mercury exposure throughout local food webs. Aerial photo of downstream side of Foster Dam. Foster Lake in background. USACE image. "We found mercury contamination of birds was common in many areas throughout western North America, some at levels above what is considered toxic to birds,” said Josh Ackerman, USGS wildlife biologist and lead author of one of the articles on bird mercury exposure. “Certain ecological characteristics, such as the type of habitat the birds live in, and their diet were important factors influencing bird mercury concentrations and their risk to mercury toxicity." This body of work was conducted as part of the Western North America Mercury Synthesis Working Group and supported by the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis. The Working Group is comprised of partners from other U.S. and Canadian federal, state, and provincial agencies, as well as academic institutions and non-governmental organizations. Primary funding support was provided by the USGS, National Park Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with additional support from the individual authors’ organizations. Findings are found in a 2016 special issue of Science of The Total Environment:  Mercury in Western North America—Spatiotemporal Patterns, Biogeochemistry, Bioaccumulation, and Risks   More Information: Special Issue USGS Environmental Health Science Feature University of Michigan News Release Biodiversity Research Institute News Release Alberta Environment and Parks #environment

Coal-Tar-Sealant a Major Source of PAH Contamination in Milwaukee Streams: Driveways in a residential subdivision are coated with black coal-tar-based sealcoat, contrasting with the white cement sidewalk. (Public domain) Runoff from pavement with coal-tar-based sealant is the primary source of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, to streambed sediments in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, according to a U.S. Geological Survey and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District study published today. Pavement sealant is a black, shiny liquid sprayed or painted on asphalt parking lots, driveways and playgrounds to improve appearance and protect the underlying asphalt. Pavement sealants that contain coal tar, a known human carcinogen, have extremely high levels of PAHs. Some PAHs are toxic to fish and other aquatic life and several are probable human carcinogens. Scientists with the USGS collected sediment samples from 40 streambed sites and dust samples from six parking lot sites in the Milwaukee area to determine the likely sources and toxicity of PAHs in streams. They found that dust from coal-tar-sealant contributed about 42 to 94 percent of the PAHs to the samples, with the remainder of PAHs coming from sources such as coal combustion and vehicle emissions.   Seventy-eight percent of the sediment samples collected had PAH levels that could adversely affect aquatic organisms like aquatic insects. Among the most toxic samples collected were those from sections of Lincoln Creek, Underwood Creek and the West Milwaukee Ditch. “This study shows that PAHs pose a very real threat to aquatic organisms at the base of the food chain,” said Austin Baldwin, a USGS scientist and the lead author of the study. “In terms of toxicity to these organisms, PAHs are probably the most important contaminants in Milwaukee-area streams.” Potential adverse effects of these PAHs on aquatic organisms include fin erosion, liver abnormalities, cataracts and immune system impairments. “Our study did not test the human health effects of coal-tar-sealant or PAHs in the Milwaukee area,” Baldwin said. “PAHs do not easily accumulate within the food chain, so possible human-health risks associated with consumption of fish are low.” However, Baldwin noted that previous studies have demonstrated risks associated with tracking coal-tar-sealant dust from driveways into homes. Exposure to children playing on sealed pavement could be another route. Coal-tar sealants have significantly higher levels of PAHs and related compounds compared to asphalt-based pavement sealants and other urban sources, including vehicle emissions, used motor oil and tire particles. Stormwater runoff, wind and tires can disseminate PAH particles throughout the urban landscape. The new USGS study is published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. For more information about water-quality research in Wisconsin, please visit the USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center website. For more information about pavement sealants and PAHs, please visit the webpage about USGS research on PAHs and sealcoat. #environment

SF Bay-Delta Conference: Science for Solutions: Advancing that cooperation is the backdrop for the 9th Biennial Bay-Delta Science Conference, Nov. 15-17, 2016, jointly sponsored by the Delta Stewardship Council and the U.S. Geological Survey. “This is a major conference that highlights the most recent discoveries that influence management decisions on the Delta,” said Dr. Cliff Dahm, Lead Scientist for the Delta Science Program. “Achieving the goals of creating a reliable water supply for cities and farms while improving the aquatic ecosystem for fisheries, recreation, and tourism requires science that expands our knowledge of ecosystem responses, produces data that directly supports decisions, and builds long-term, resilient solutions.” Vinyards and Agricultural Fields in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta More than 1,000 scientists, managers, and policymakers will gather in Sacramento to discuss the latest advances in scientific information and ideas on water resource management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, its watershed and the San Francisco Bay. “Collaboration among scientists, managers, and stakeholders is necessary for research to be as informative and useful as it can be to those charged with making the major decisions that lie ahead. This biennial conference is a very effective way to make those connections,” said Mike Chotkowski, the Bay-Delta Science Coordinator for the USGS. San Francisco Bay and the Delta, formed by the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, is the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas, the hub of both state and federal water projects, home to many unique native species and a region of agricultural and recreational importance. Conflicts among human uses for water and conservation of the Bay-Delta and its watershed have bedeviled policy makers for decades. This year’s conference theme, “Science for Solutions: Linking Data and Decisions,” is in the spirit of “One Delta, One Science” and highlights how management of the Bay-Delta ecosystem continues to be a critical crossroads with political and regulatory mandates seeking new ways to manage water exports while restoring landscape-level ecosystem attributes and functions. To support these activities requires that scientists make connections among external drivers, management actions and ecosystem responses. Perhaps more critical, the scientific and management communities must make connections to ensure a two-way flow of needs, resources, ideas and understanding. Pintail Ducks Rising from the North Unit of the Yolo Bypass near Sacramento, California The conference will be held at the Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street, and begins with a plenary session at 9 a.m. on Nov. 15. Participants include: - Felicia Marcus, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, will discuss the science required to identify water quality standards that improve aquatic life protection while maintaining protection for water uses. 
 - Phil Isenberg, former Chair and Vice-Chair of the Delta Stewardship Council, and now with the Public Policy Institute of California, will discuss how state policies and partnerships can sufficiently fund science and monitoring programs to produce data and expand our knowledge so we can identify and employ actions that improve fishery, ecosystem and water supply management. 
 - Dr. Peter Moyle, Center for Watershed Sciences at U.C. Davis, will discuss how joint science-based policy studies from U.C. Davis and the Public Policy Institute of California have shown alternative pathways to the future other than the status quo. 
 - Dr. Cliff Dahm, Lead Scientist of the Council’s Delta Science Program, will discuss what directions Delta science efforts should take following the scientific advancements since the previous Science Conference. Several special sessions include: - Drought and Water Management – Managing for Droughts; Water Rights Curtailment . - Contaminant Issues in the Bay-Delta – Toxic Algae Issues; Herbicide, Insecticide, 
and Pesticide Issues. - Lost in Translation – The Art of Interpreting Complex Science for Policymakers. 
The conference also features sessions on: - Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Science & Management in a Changing Climate – Needs to Achieve Fish Viability; Impacts of Shasta Dam Water Operations. - Art at the Conference – How art and science can work together to increase awareness of estuarine ecology; Using artistic principles to communicate scientific concepts. 
 This year’s conference is co-chaired by Dr. Nann Fangue, a wildlife, fish and conservation biologist at U.C. Davis, and Dr. Erin Foresman, an environmental scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More information, including a full program is available online. Grasses along the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Central California #environment

In Orlando, USGS Science on the Health of the Environment is on Display: The health of the environment is a research priority for the U.S. Geological Survey, and some of the recent highlights of that research will be on display at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry’s 2016 North American conference this Fall. For reporters interested in attending these presentations at the conference, or for following up with the scientists who did the research, please call or email Alex Demas at 703-648-4421 or apdemas@usgs.gov. Maintaining the Aquatic Food Web The largest subject area that USGS will have presentations and posters in is studies on the health of aquatic organisms, such as aquatic invertebrates. Although not as charismatic, aquatic invertebrates serve an essential function in the food web, and are often on the front lines of exposure to contaminants. Some of those contaminants come from mine waste or drainage. Often these are metals, and they can have significant toxic effects on aquatic invertebrates. USGS is presenting studies that look at the effects of these metals on caged and wild crayfish, mussels, aquatic insects like caddisflies, and amphipods, which are tiny invertebrates that are an important food source for many other animals. When one part of the food web is affected, it can ripple throughout the entire ecosystem. Thus, studies of the entire food web are important to show the true effects a contaminant can have. In one such example, USGS is presenting a study on how the insecticide bifenthrin can have significant impacts on aquatic food webs and even affect nearby land-based food webs. Moving up the food web, USGS has studies on frog species’ exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as a study on the effects of the herbicide atrazine on fathead minnows. Although each of these species is not the target of the pesticide in question, they can still be affected, either through bioaccumulation in the food the species eat or exposure in the environment. In the same vein of unintended consequences, natural disasters can have longer-reaching effects than the initial destruction they’re known for. USGS will be presenting studies on organic pollutants spread by Hurricane Sandy and their effects on bluefish and resident mussels. And finally, USGS plays an important role in the methodologies that go into studying the health of aquatic organisms. Strategies to address endocrine disruption in Chesapeake Bay fish and wildlife; the chronic toxicity of various chemicals to freshwater mussels; and the role of mesocosms in studying aquatic life are three presentations that USGS has on environmental health methodology. The Science of Spills in Streams In addition to studying the organisms that live in aquatic environments, USGS studies the health of the aquatic environments themselves. For instance, in addition to studying the actual effects of pesticides on aquatic organisms, USGS scientists study how the pesticides can reach the aquatic organisms in the first place. This year, USGS has presentations on how an additive to the popular pesticide glyphosate can spread in the environment; what the effects of various pesticide mixtures are in Midwestern streams; and what levels of neonicotinoid insecticides are in certain agricultural and urban streams throughout the United States. In addition, USGS looks at unintended spills of various chemicals, with presentations on diluted bitumen spills in the Kalamazoo River and the residual toxicity of NaOH-based ballast water treatment system for freshwater bulk freighters. Also, USGS has a presentation on what can happen to sediment toxicity during a dam’s removal. Finally, just as with the aquatic organisms, USGS has valuable studies on how to research the health of aquatic environments. In addition to the well-established EPA MDL procedure, USGS examines how to estimate detection levels for multi-analyte methods, which is important for determining contaminant levels in streams. Also, USGS has taken a look at the use of the tool ToxCast to evaluate organic contaminant effects in Great Lakes Tributaries and whether or not reducing the amount of sulfate can mitigate the production of methylmercury in the Great Lakes. Taking to the Sky Aquatic organisms aren’t the only ones USGS studies. This year, there are a number of papers and posters that look at the health of birds, namely what chemicals and contaminants they’re exposed to and the effects they may experience. Tree swallows received the most attention, with USGS and EPA looking at the distribution and effects of legacy contaminants on egg and nestling survival in Great Lakes Areas of Concern, as well as whether the swallows are appropriate bioindicators for other toxicants. In addition, they were also used to assess how effective various remedies were in those Areas of Concern. Birds of prey were also studied, because their position at the higher end of the foodweb means they can be exposed to significant bioaccumulation of various contaminants. However, USGS research on ospreys showed that, at least in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, they largely have a clean bill of health.  Two other studies looked at American kestrels and what happens when they are exposed to persistent organic pollutants or priority flame retardants while developing in eggs. The Science of Environmental Chemistry Finally, USGS has several presentations about the science of environmental chemistry, including one on environmental chemistry perspectives from around the world. And, before the conference officially begins, USGS is giving a workshop on exploratory data analysis and plotting data with ggplot2 in R. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry’s 2016 North American conference runs from November 6-10 in Orlando, Fla. #environment

When the Whole is Less than the Sum of Its Parts: At typical ratios that occur in the environment, cadmium and zinc combined were less toxic to aquatic insects than was expected from adding up their individual effects, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey. The study was conducted on aquatic insects in a mesocosm meant to mimic conditions in mountain streams. “This was our first study to look at metal mixtures in mesocosms, as opposed to our previous work that used field data,” said USGS scientist Chris Mebane, lead author of the study. “By allowing us to deliberately control the concentrations and exposures, this study helps bridge the gap between standard laboratory toxicity tests and real-world environments.” Cadmium and zinc are elements that almost always occur together in nature—where cadmium is found, zinc will be there too, usually at 200 times the concentration of cadmium. Both cadmium and zinc can end up in streams after energy or mineral resource development disturbs nearby rocks with the two elements in them. USGS scientist Travis Schmidt, designer of the experiment, examines the artificial streams used in the research. Credit: Chris Mebane, USGS To determine what effects that might have on aquatic insect communities, USGS scientists tested varying concentrations of cadmium and zinc, individually and then in ratios likely to be found in nature. Aquatic insects often form the backbone of aquatic food webs, so what happens to them can have ripple effects throughout the whole ecosystem. Cadmium was far more toxic to aquatic insects (particularly mayflies) than zinc, with effects at very low cadmium concentrations of less than 1 part-per-billion. Yet in combination at typical ratios that occur in the environment, cadmium and zinc were less toxic than was expected from adding up their individual effects. “We believe that the reasons for this are while cadmium is much more toxic than zinc, zinc is naturally about 200 times more abundant in water than cadmium,” said USGS scientist Laurie Balistrieri, a co-author on the study​. “Further, zinc has a higher chemical affinity to attach to the surface of the insect’s gills and is able to out-compete cadmium from attaching to the gill.”  Brachycentrus caddisflies swim in an artificial stream used in the research. Credit: Chris Mebane, USGS. Even though zinc is itself moderately toxic, because it is more abundant it can block more highly toxic cadmium from interfering with calcium uptake. Thus the overall toxicity of the cadmium and zinc mixture was reduced, relative to the sum of the expected damage that each alone could produce. Because of their chemical nature, both cadmium and zinc can interfere with an organism’s ability to process calcium, which can result in toxic effects. This study is part of a broader research project examining the environmental effects of water- draining mineralized rock. Future research will focus on copper, nickel and cobalt mixtures in drainage from platinum group element deposits. More information about the study can be found here. More information about USGS mineral research can be found here. More information about USGS environmental health research can be found here. Sign up for our environmental health newsletter here, and follow us for more mineral studies on Twitter! #environment

Gulls in Alaska Found to Carry Antibiotic Resistant E. coli: Scientists Andrew Ramey, Bjorn Olsen, and Jonas Bonnedahl (L to R) setting a trap for gulls at the Soldotna landfill in June 2016.Andrew Reeves, USGSPublic domain Gulls commonly carry E. coli and often show no signs of illness. However, this is the first report of antibiotic resistant E. coli in birds in the southcentral Alaska region. While it is still unclear how gulls are picking up antibiotic resistant strains of E. coli, possible sources include landfills and wastewater discharge. USGS and collaborators sampled gulls on the urban Kenai Peninsula and on the remote Middleton Island, a location far offshore in the Gulf of Alaska. The samples were tested, and results show more antibiotic resistant bacteria in birds in areas with higher levels of human use. Areas tested on the Kenai Peninsula’s Soldotna Landfill and the mouth of the Kenai River were chosen because of earlier water quality sampling performed by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation near these areas. “More than half of the E. coli collected from gulls on the Kenai Peninsula were resistant to at least one antibiotic compound, and a large number of multi-resistant E. coli strains were detected,” said Andy Ramey, a USGS Alaska Science Center scientist and co-author of the report. “This is higher than the number of resistant strains identified at more remote gull colonies on Middleton Island.” “Our findings suggest an increased level of antibiotic resistant bacteria in birds associated with urban environments,” said Dr. Jonas Bonnedahl, an infectious disease physician at Kalmar County Hospital in Sweden and senior author of the study. “Based on our findings, additional research may be warranted to understand the risk for re-transmission of antibiotic resistant E. coli to humans in locations where people and gulls interact.” For the past several years, ADEC, the City of Kenai, and the Kenai Watershed Forum have monitored water quality on the Kenai River. Elevated levels of bacteria have been reported in recent years, and based on other studies it was concluded that gull feces were a significant source of bacteria in the Kenai River. John Reed (USGS scientist) holding a gull marked with a satellite transmitter at the Soldotna landfill in June 2016.Lee Tibbitts, USGSPublic domain Following detections of bacteria, USGS worked with specialists in Sweden who conducted a similar study of gulls in Barrow, Alaska, in 2005 and 2010 to understand more about bacteria in gulls. Scientists will continue to sample gulls, fish and beaches at locations on the Kenai Peninsula and other locations in Alaska to understand how widespread these bacteria are during summer. Additionally, scientists have initiated satellite tracking of gulls on the Kenai Peninsula to understand the movement of gulls among regions. “The paper illustrates a good lesson in ecosystem health and the interrelationships of wildlife and humans,” said Alaska state veterinarian, Dr. Robert Gerlach. For questions about bacteria on the Kenai Peninsula where gulls are present, ADEC created a “Protecting Your Health While Dipnetting” brochure which can be found on the Alaska Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Program website. To reduce the chance of illness, ADEC encourages the public to use good sanitary procedures such as washing your hands after visiting a landfill or before processing fish, washing fish in clean tap water, and cooking fish to a minimum of 145 degrees internal temperature. Additionally, ADEC cautions the public to wash or shower after contact with beach water and to not drink water from the river. The new report is entitled, “Increased prevalence of antibiotic resistant E. coli in gulls sampled in southcentral Alaska is associated with urban environments” and is available at the website for the journal Infection Ecology and Epidemiology. Additional information about wildlife disease research conducted by the USGS Alaska Science Center can be found HERE. For additional information from ADEC on bacteria sampling and healthy habits on the Kenai River, visit HERE. #environment

Warmer Waters From Climate Change Could Impact Sport Fish Communities in Midwestern Lakes: MADISON, WISCONSIN – Climate change is predicted to alter sport fish communities in Midwestern lakes, according to a new study that related water temperature to suitability for walleye and largemouth bass in more than 2,100 Wisconsin lakes. For the past 30 years, walleye populations have been declining and largemouth bass populations have been increasing in lakes across Wisconsin. These changes are cause for concern for many anglers and policy makers since freshwater fishing in Wisconsin is valued at more than $1.5 billion, and walleye are the preferred species for many anglers. According to the study, this downward trend in walleye populations is likely to continue as climate change will cause lakes to get warmer overtime. Researchers identified characteristics of lakes where walleye or largemouth bass were most likely to thrive and found that both species were strongly influenced by water temperature. While walleye populations thrived in cooler, larger lakes, largemouth bass were more abundant in warmer lakes. “Generally this means that lakes that are best for walleye are not the best for largemouth bass, and vice versa” said study author Gretchen Hansen, former Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources research scientist currently with the Minnesota DNR. “Going forward, we predict that many Wisconsin lakes are going to become more suitable for largemouth bass, and less suitable for walleye.” The suitability of individual lakes for supporting walleye and largemouth bass was based on a computer model that estimated daily water temperatures from 1979-2014 for thousands of lakes using information on lake size, depth, water clarity, and historical weather. “We don’t measure water temperature in many lakes,” said co-author Jordan Read, U.S. Geological Survey civil engineer. “Modeled lake temperatures can fill the gaps and provide fisheries managers and researchers with a full historical record of water temperature for each of these lakes.” Future lake temperatures were also forecasted for the 2,100 lakes using mid- and late-21st century climate projections and the study authors emphasized that the diversity of lakes will determine how they will respond to climate change. “Wisconsin’s lakes are going to get warmer in the future, but how much warmer they will get varies among lakes” said study co-author Luke Winslow, USGS research hydrologist. By accounting for variability among lakes in how they respond to climate change, researchers estimated how individual lakes and their fish communities were expected to respond to future warming.  The percentage of lakes likely to support natural reproduction of walleye was predicted to decline from 10 percent to less than 4 percent of Wisconsin lakes by the middle of the century. At the same time, the percentage of lakes with conditions conducive to high largemouth bass abundance was predicted to increase from 60 to 89 percent of lakes within the same timeframe.        Notably, when projected changes are considered in terms of total lake area, the story is more optimistic. The percentage of lake acreage likely to support natural reproduction of walleye was predicted to decline by a much smaller amount, from 46 to 36 percent by mid-century. “Walleye populations in large lakes appear to be more tolerant of warming than walleye populations in small lakes” explains Hansen. The study predicted improved conditions for largemouth bass in more than 500 lakes that are not currently suitable for either species, representing expanded fishing opportunities for bass anglers. The percentage of lake acreage with conditions conducive to high largemouth bass abundance is expected to increase from 28 up to 85 percent by the middle of the century.  The research team continues to pursue the question of how fish communities in lakes are likely to change in the future, with current work focused on expanding their analysis to include lakes in Minnesota and Michigan. This study, which was funded by the Department of Interior Northeast Climate Science Center, with additional support from the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, and the Wisconsin DNR Sport Fish Restoration funds, was published in the journal Global Change Biology and can be read here.   Learn more by visiting https://owi.usgs.gov/vizlab/climate-change-walleye-bass/ where you can read more detailed information about the study’s findings, and examine predictions for individual lakes throughout Wisconsin with an interactive map. #environment