Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20121128

Assessment of soil-gas and groundwater contamination at the Gibson Road landfill, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011

Abstract

Soil-gas and groundwater assessments were conducted at the Gibson Road landfill in 201 to provide screening-level environmental contamination data to supplement the data collected during previous environmental studies at the landfill. Passive samplers were used in both assessments to detect volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil gas and groundwater. A total of 56 passive samplers were deployed in the soil in late July and early August for the soil-gas assessment. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected at masses greater than the method detection level of 0.02 microgram in all samplers and masses greater than 2.0 micrograms in 13 samplers. Three samplers located between the landfill and a nearby wetland had TPH masses greater than 20 micrograms. Diesel was detected in 28 of the 56 soil-gas samplers. Undecane, tridecane, and pentadecane were detected, but undecane was the most common diesel compound with 23 detections. Only five detections exceeded a combined diesel mass of 0.10 microgram, including the highest mass of 0.27 microgram near the wetland. Toluene was detected in only five passive samplers, including masses of 0.65 microgram near the wetland and 0.85 microgram on the southwestern side of the landfill. The only other gasoline-related compound detected was octane in two samplers. Naphthalene was detected in two samplers in the gully near the landfill and two samplers along the southwestern side of the landfill, but had masses less than or equal to 0.02 microgram. Six samplers located southeast of the landfill had detections of chlorinated compounds, including one perchloroethene detections (0.04 microgram) and five chloroform detections (0.05 to0.08 microgram). Passive samplers were deployed and recovered on August 8, 2011, in nine monitoring wells along the southwestern, southeastern and northeastern sides of the landfill and down gradient from the eastern corner of the landfill. Six of the nine samplers had TPH concentrations greater than 100 micrograms per liter. TPH concentrations declined from 320 micrograms per liter in a sampler near the landfill to 18 micrograms in a sampler near the wetland. Five of the samplers had detections of one or more diesel compounds but detections of individual diesel compounds had concentrations below a method detection level of 0.01 microgram per liter. Benzene was detected in three samplers and exceeded the national primary drinking-water standard of 5 micrograms per liter set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The concentrations of benzene, and therefore BTEX, were 6.1 micrograms per liter in the sampler near the eastern corner of the landfill, 27 micrograms per liter in the sampler near the wetland, and 37 micrograms per liter in the sampler at the southern corner of the landfill. Nonfuel-related compounds were detected in the four wells that are aligned between the eastern corner of the landfill and the wetland. The sampler deployed nearest the eastern corner of the landfill had the greatest number of detected organic compounds and had the only detections of two trimethylbenzene compounds, naphthalene, 2-methyl naphthalene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. The two up gradient samplers had the greatest number of chlorinated compounds with five compounds each, compared to detections of four compounds and one compound in the two down gradient samplers. All four samplers had detections of 1,1-dichloroethane which ranged from 42 to 1,300 micrograms per liter. Other detections of chlorinated compounds included trichloroethene, perchloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and chloroform.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W. Fred Falls, Andral W. Caldwell, Wladmir G. Guimaraes, W. Hagan Ratliff, John B. Wellborn, James Landmeyer. 2012. Assessment of soil-gas and groundwater contamination at the Gibson Road landfill, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20121128

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona