USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Review 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.

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources

2018 report on incorporating sedimentary basin response into the design of tall buildings in Seattle, Washington

On March 22, 2018, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) convened a workshop of engineers and seismologists to provide guidance on incorporating sedimentary basin response into the design of tall buildings in Seattle. This workshop provided recommendations that build on those from a March 2013 workshop (Chang and others, 2014), primarily based on new results from 3-D simulations of magnitude (M) 9 Cascadia earthquakes (The M9 Project). Susan Chang, a geotechnical engineer with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, organized and led the workshop; Art Frankel (USGS) assisted in constructing the agenda. The workshop agenda and attendees are provided in the appendix. The attendees represented a wide range of expertise, including seismologists with expertise in ground motions and basin response, geotechnical engineers, and structural engineers. Their professional experience included working on local projects related to the design of long-period structures; peer reviewing ground motions for performance-based design of high-rises in Seattle; researching basin response in academic, government and industry settings; developing ground motion models; and representing local and national structural engineering organizations. In this report, we summarize the technical presentations, key discussion points, and recommendations from the workshop.

Washington↗

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency: Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee

In December 1967, Bulletin No. 15, "A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies," was issued by the Hydrology Committee of the Water Resources Council. The report recommended use of the Pearson Type III distribution with log transformation of the data (log-Pearson Type III distribution) as a base method for flood flow frequency studies. As pointed out in that report, further studies were needed covering various aspects of flow frequency determinations. In March 1976, Bulletin 17, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency" was issued by the Water Resources Council. The guide was an extension and update of Bulletin No. 15. It provided a more complete guide for flood flow frequency analysis incorporating currently accepted technical methods with sufficient detail to promote uniform application. It was limited to defining flood potentials in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability at locations where a systematic record of peak flood flows is available. The recommended set of procedures was selected from those used or described in the literature prior to 1976, based on studies conducted for this purpose at the Center for Research in Water Resources of the University of Texas at Austin (summarized in Appendix 14) and on studies by the Work Group on Flood Flow Frequency. The "Guidelines" were revised and reissued in June 1977 as Bulletin 17A. Bulletin 17B is the latest effort to improve and expand upon the earlier publications. Bulletin 17B provides revised procedures for weighting a station skew value with the results from a generalized skew study, detecting and treating outliers, making two station comparisons, and computing confidence limits about a frequency curve. The Work Group that prepared this revision did not address the suitability of the original distribution or the generalized skew map. Major problems are encountered when developing guides for flood flow frequency determinations. There is no procedure or set of procedures that can be adopted which, when rigidly applied to the available data, will accurately define the flood potential of any given watershed. Statistical analysis alone will not resolve all flood frequency problems. As discussed in subsequent sections of this guide, elements of risk and uncertainty are inherent in any flood frequency analysis. User decisions must be based on properly applied procedures and proper interpretation of results considering risk and uncertainty. Therefore, the judgment of a professional experienced in hydrologic analysis will enhance the usefulness of a flood frequency analysis and promote appropriate application. It is possible to standarize many elements of flood frequency analysis. This guide describes each major element of the process of defining the flood potential at a specific location in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability. Use is confined to stations where available records are adequate to warrant statistical analysis of the data. Special situations may require other approaches. In those cases where the procedures of this guide are not followed, deviations must be supported by appropriate study and accompanied by a comparison of results using the recommended procedures. As a further means of achieving consistency and improving results, the Work Group recommends that studies be coordinated when more than one analyst is working currently on data for the same location. This recommendation holds particularly when defining exceedance probabilities for rare events, where this guide allows more latitude. Flood records are limited. As more years of record become available at each location, the determination of flood potential may change. Thus, an estimate may be outdated a few years after it is made. Additional flood data alone may be sufficient reason for a fresh assessment of the flood potential. When making a new assessment, the analyst should incorporate in his study a review of earlier estimates. Where differences appear, they should be acknowledged and explained.

Bulletin↗

Water resources and shale gas/oil production in the Appalachian Basin: critical issues and evolving developments

Unconventional natural gas and oil resources in the United States are important components of a national energy program. While the Nation seeks greater energy independence and greener sources of energy, Federal agencies with environmental responsibilities, state and local regulators and water-resource agencies, and citizens throughout areas of unconventional shale gas development have concerns about the environmental effects of high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), including those in the Appalachian Basin in the northeastern United States (fig. 1). Environmental concerns posing critical challenges include the availability and use of surface water and groundwater for hydraulic fracturing; the migration of stray gas and potential effects on overlying aquifers; the potential for flowback, formation fluids, and other wastes to contaminate surface water and groundwater; and the effects from drill pads, roads, and pipeline infrastructure on land disturbance in small watersheds and headwater streams (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012). Federal, state, regional and local agencies, along with the gas industry, are striving to use the best science and technology to develop these unconventional resources in an environmentally safe manner. Some of these concerns were addressed in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet 2009–3032 (Soeder and Kappel, 2009) about potential critical effects on water resources associated with the development of gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale of the Hamilton Group (Ver Straeten and others, 1994). Since that time, (1) the extraction process has evolved, (2) environmental awareness related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing process has increased, (3) state regulations concerning gas well drilling have been modified, and (4) the practices used by industry to obtain, transport, recover, treat, recycle, and ultimately dispose of the spent fluids and solid waste materials have evolved. This report updates and expands on Fact Sheet 2009–3032 and presents new information regarding selected aspects of unconventional shale gas development in the Appalachian Basin (primarily Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York). This document was prepared by the USGS, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, and reviews the evolving technical advances and scientific studies made in the Appalachian Basin between 2009 and the present (2013), addressing past and current issues for oil and gas development in the region.

Maryl;New York;Ohio;Pennsylvania;Virginia;West Vir↗

The Geologic Story of Mount Rainier

Ice-clad Mount Rainier, towering over the landscape of western Washington, ranks with Fuji-yama in Japan, Popocatepeti in Mexico, and Vesuvius in Italy among the great volcanoes of the world. At Mount Rainier, as at other inactive volcanoes, the ever-present possibility of renewed eruptions gives viewers a sense of anticipation, excitement, and apprehension not equaled by most other mountains. Even so, many of us cannot imagine the cataclysmic scale of the eruptions that were responsible for building the giant cone which now stands in silence. We accept the volcano as if it had always been there, and we appreciate only the beauty of its stark expanses of rock and ice, its flower-strewn alpine meadows, and its bordering evergreen forests. Mount Rainier owes its scenic beauty to many features. The broad cone spreads out on top of a major mountain range - the Cascades. The volcano rises about 7,000 feet above its 7,000-foot foundation, and stands in solitary splendor - the highest peak in the entire Cascade Range. Its rocky ice-mantled slopes above timberline contrast with the dense green forests and give Mount Rainier the appearance of an arctic island in a temperate sea, an island so large that you can see its full size and shape only from the air. The mountain is highly photogenic because of the contrasts it offers among bare rock, snowfields, blue sky, and the incomparable flower fields that color its lower slopes, shadows cast by the multitude of cliffs, ridges, canyons, and pinnacles change constantly from sunrise to sunset, endlessly varying the texture and mood of the mountain. The face of the mountain also varies from day to day as its broad snowfields melt during the summer. The melting of these frozen reservoirs makes Mount Rainier a natural resource in a practical as well as in an esthetic sense, for it ensures steady flows of water for hydroelectric power in the region, regardless of season. Seen from the Puget Sound country to the west, Mount Rainier has an unreal quality - its white summit, nearly 3 miles high, seems to float among the clouds. We share with the populace of the entire lowland a thrill as we watch skyward the evening's setting sun reddens the volcano's western snowfields. When you approach the mountain in its lovely setting, you may find something that appeals especially to you - the scenery, the wildlife, the glaciers, or the wildflowers. Or you may feel challenged to climb to the summit. Mount Rainier and its neighboring mountains have a special allure for a geologist because he visualizes the event - some ordinary, some truly spectacular - that made the present landscape. Such is the fascination of geology. A geologist becomes trained to see 'in his mind's eye' geologic events of thousands or even millions of years ago. And, most remarkable, he can 'see' these events by studying rocks in a cliff or roadcut, or perhaps by examining earthy material that looks like common soil beneath pastureland many miles away from the volcano. Our key to understanding the geology of Mount Rainier is that each geologic event can be reconstructed - or imagined - from the rocks formed at the time of the event. With this principle as our guide, we will review the geologic ancestry of this majestic volcano and learn what is behind its scenery.

Washington↗

Independent technical review and analysis of hydraulic modeling and hydrology under low-flow conditions of the Des Plaines River near Riverside, Illinois

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated a streamgage and published daily flows for the Des Plaines River at Riverside since Oct. 1, 1943. A HEC-RAS model has been developed to estimate the effect of the removal of Hofmann Dam near the gage on low-flow elevations in the reach approximately 3 miles upstream from the dam. The Village of Riverside, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources-Office of Water Resources (IDNR-OWR), and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Chicago District (USACE-Chicago) are interested in verifying the performance of the HEC-RAS model for specific low-flow conditions, and obtaining an estimate of selected daily flow quantiles and other low-flow statistics for a selected period of record that best represents current hydrologic conditions. Because the USGS publishes streamflow records for the Des Plaines River system and provides unbiased analyses of flows and stream hydraulic characteristics, the USGS served as an Independent Technical Reviewer (ITR) for this study.

Illinois↗

A critical review of bioaccumulation and biotransformation of organic chemicals in birds

A literature review of bioaccumulation and biotransformation of organic chemicals in birds was undertaken, aiming to support scoping and prioritization of future research. The objectives were to characterize available bioaccumulation/biotransformation data, identify knowledge gaps, determine how extant data can be used, and explore the strategy and steps forward. An intermediate approach balanced between expediency and rigor was taken given the vastness of the literature. Following a critical review of > 500 peer-reviewed studies, > 25,000 data entries and 2 million information bytes were compiled on > 700 organic compounds for ~ 320 wild species and 60 domestic breeds of birds. These data were organized into themed databases on bioaccumulation and biotransformation , field survey , microsomal enzyme activity , metabolic pathway , and bird taxonomy and diet . Significant data gaps were identified in all databases at multiple levels. Biotransformation characterization was largely fragmented over metabolite/pathway identification and characterization of enzyme activity or biotransformation kinetics. Limited biotransformation kinetic data constrained development of an avian biotransformation model. A substantial shortage of in vivo biotransformation kinetics has been observed as most reported rate constants were derived in vitro. No metric comprehensively captured all key contaminant classes or chemical groups to support broad-scope modeling of bioaccumulation or biotransformation. However, metrics such as biota-feed accumulation factor, maximum transfer factor, and total elimination rate constant were more readily usable for modeling or benchmarking than other reviewed parameters. Analysis demonstrated the lack of bioaccumulation/biotransformation characterization of shorebirds, seabirds, and raptors. In the study of bioaccumulation and biotransformation of organic chemicals in birds, this review revealed the need for greater chemical and avian species diversity, chemical measurements in environmental media, basic biometrics and exposure conditions, multiple tissues/matrices sampling, and further exploration on biotransformation. Limitations of classical bioaccumulation metrics and current research strategies used in bird studies were also discussed. Forward-looking research strategies were proposed: adopting a chemical roadmap for future investigations, integrating existing biomonitoring data, gap-filling with non-testing approaches, improving data reporting practices, expanding field sampling scopes, bridging existing models and theories, exploring biotransformation via avian genomics, and establishing an online data repository.

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicol↗

A conceptual framework to assess post-wildfire water quality: State of the science and knowledge gaps

Wildfire substantially alters aquatic ecosystems by inducing moderate to catastrophic physical and chemical changes. However, the relations of environmental and watershed variables that drive those effects are complex. We present a Driver-Factor-Stressor-Effect (DFSE) conceptual framework to assess the current state of the science related to post-wildfire water-quality. We reviewed 64 peer-reviewed papers using the DFSE framework to identify drivers, factors, stressors, and effects associated with each study. A total of five drivers were identified and ranked according to their frequency of occurrence in the literature: atmospheric processes > fire characteristics > ecologic processes and characteristics > land surface characteristics > soil characteristics. Commonly reported stressors include increased nutrients, runoff, and sediment transport. Furthermore, although several different factors have been used at least once to explain water-quality effects, relatively few factors outside of precipitation and fire characteristics are frequently studied. We identified several gaps indicating the need for long-term monitoring, multi-factor studies, consideration of organic contaminants, consideration of groundwater, and inclusion of soil characteristics. This assessment expands on other reviews and meta-analyses by exploring causal linkages between influential variables and overall effects in post-wildfire watersheds. Information gathered from our assessment and the framework itself can be used to inform future monitoring plans and as a guide for modeling efforts focused on better understanding specific processes or to mitigate potential risks of post-wildfire water quality.

Water Resources Research↗

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: Report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for review, interrupted tetrahedral framework structures are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is allowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundance in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemical symbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely on Si:Al ratio except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite ( Si : Al ⩾ 4.0 ). Dehydration, partial hydration, and over-hydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of a zeolite. Newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr.-Ba: chabazite-Ca.-Na.-K; clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca: dachiardite-Ca, -Na; erionite-K, -Ca: faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Na: paulingite-K. -Ca; phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -Ka; stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data. IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry; unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, svetlozarite, and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

Mineralogical Magazine↗

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

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

Open-File Report↗

Strain accumulation in western United States

This review is principally concerned with recent geodetic strain measurements in western United States undertaken by the US Geological Survey as part of the earthquake studies program and, as a consequence, is heavily biased toward the author's own publications. Most of the publications reporting crustal-strain measurements in western United States prior to about 1968 have been compiled in one volume (National Geodetic Survey 1973), and more recent work (with complete bibliographies) is summarized in three successive quadrennial reports to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (Meade 1971, Savage 1975, Thatcher 1979b). The following conventions are employed in this paper: Strain, a dimensionless quantity, is reported in units of 10 6 Extension is taken as positive. To distinguish between engineering and tensor shear strain, we denote the former by γ and quote the units as μr ad, whereas the latter is denoted by e and given the units of μ strain. Uncertainties in all cases are quoted as ± one standard deviation.

California↗

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Cumberland County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Cumberland County, documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Cumberland County, Maine is 21 years. Most of these studies were in the early to mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-25 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Cumberland County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Cumberland County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how effective FIS data can be used in new project, and identify other data needed to

Open-File Report↗

Sources of mercury in sediments, water, and fish of the lakes of Whatcom County, Washington

Concerns about mercury (Hg) contamination in Lake Whatcom, Washington, were raised in the late 1990s after a watershed protection survey reported elevated concentrations of Hg in smallmouth bass. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Whatcom County Health Department, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) cooperated to develop a study to review existing data and collect new data that would lead to a better understanding of Hg deposition to Lake Whatcom and other lakes in Whatcom County, Washington. A simple atmospheric deposition model was developed that allowed comparisons of the deposition of Hg to the surfaces of each lake. Estimates of Hg deposition derived from the model indicated that the most significant deposition of Hg would have occurred to the lakes north of the City of Bellingham. These lakes were in the primary wind pattern of two municipal waste incinerators. Of all the lakes examined, basin 1 of Lake Whatcom would have been most affected by the Hg emissions from the chlor-alkali plant and the municipal sewage-sludge incinerator in the City of Bellingham. The length-adjusted concentrations of Hg in largemouth and smallmouth bass were not related to estimated deposition rates of Hg to the lakes from local atmospheric sources. Total Hg concentrations in the surface sediments of Lake Whatcom are affected by the sedimentation of fine-grained particles, whereas organic carbon regulates the concentration of methyl-Hg in the surface sediments of the lake. Hg concentrations in dated sediment core samples indicate that increases in Hg sedimentation were largest during the first half of the 20th century. Increases in Hg sedimentation were smaller after the chlor-alkali plant and the incinerators began operating between 1964 and 1984. Analysis of sediments recently deposited in basin 1 of Lake Whatcom, Lake Terrell, and Lake Samish indicates a decrease in Hg sedimentation. Concentrations of Hg in Seattle precipitation and in tributary waters were used to calculate current (2002-03) loadings of Hg to Lake Whatcom. Hg in tributaries contributed 59 percent of the total Hg, whereas non-local atmospheric deposition was estimated to have contributed 41 percent of the 303 grams of Hg entering Lake Whatcom each year. However, these inputs cannot be verified without a better understanding of the sources of sediment to Lake Whatcom.

Scientific Investigations Report↗