USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · ofr98559

Evaluation of chemical data from selected sites in the Surface-Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in Florida

Abstract

A cooperative study between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Geological Survey was conducted to assess the integrity of selected water-quality data collected at 150 sites in the FDEP Surface-Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in Florida. The assessment included determining the consistency of the water-quality data collected statewide, including commonality of monitoring procedures and analytes, screening of the gross validity of a chemical analysis, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures. Four tests were used to screen data at selected SWAMP sites to estimate the gross validity of selected chemical data: (1) the ratio of dissolved solids (in milligrams per liter) to specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter); (2) the ratio of total cations (in milliequivalents per liter) multiplied by 100 to specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter); (3) the ratio of total anions (in milliequivalents per liter) multiplied by 100 to specific conductance (in microsiemens per centimeter); and (4) the ionic charge-balance error. Although the results of the four screening tests indicate that the chemical data generally are quite reliable, the extremely small number of samples (less than 5 percent of the total number of samples) with sufficient chemical information to run the tests may not provide a representative indication of the analytical accuracy of all laboratories in the program. In addition to the four screening tests, unusually low or high values were flagged for field and laboratory pH (less than 4.0 and greater than 9.0) and specific conductance (less than 10 and greater than 10,000 microsiemens per centimeter). The numbers of flagged data were less than 1 percent of the 19,937 water samples with pH values and less than 0.6 percent of the 16,553 water samples with specific conductance values. Thirty-four agencies responded to a detailed questionnaire that was sent to more than 60 agencies involved in the collection and analysis of surface-water-quality data for SWAMP. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate quality assurance methods and consistency of methods statewide. Information was compiled and summarized on monitoring network design, data review and upload procedures, laboratory and field sampling methods, and data practices. Currently, most agencies that responded to the survey follow FDEP-approved QA/QC protocol for sampling and have quality assurance practices for recording and reporting data. Also, most agencies responded that calibration procedures were followed in the laboratory for analysis of data, but no responses were given about the specific procedures. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents indicated that laboratory analysis methods have changed over time. With so many laboratories involved in analyzing samples for SWAMP, it is difficult to compare water quality from one site to another due to different reporting conventions for chemical constituents and different analytical methods over time. Most agencies responded that calibration methods are followed in the field, but no specific details were provided. Grab samples are the most common method of collection. Other data screening procedures are necessary to further evaluate the validity of chemical data collected at SWAMP sites. High variability in the concentration of targeted constituents may signal analytical problems, but more likely changes in concentration are related to hydrologic conditions. This underscores the need for accurate measurements of discharge, lake stage, tidal stage at the time of sampling so that changes in constituent concentrations can be properly evaluated and fluxes (loads) of nutrients or metals, for example, can be calculated and compared over time.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 24.546468° to 31.000682° latitude; -87.634938° to -80.031362° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B. G. Katz, J.J. Collins. 1998. Evaluation of chemical data from selected sites in the Surface-Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in Florida. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr98559

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗