Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Public Health”

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 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
USGS2014

Groundwater-quality data in seven GAMA study units: results from initial sampling, 2004-2005, and resampling, 2007-2008, of wells: California GAMA Program Priority Basin Project

The Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The GAMA-PBP began sampling, primarily public supply wells in May 2004. By the end of February 2006, seven (of what would eventually be 35) study units had been sampled over a wide area of the State. Selected wells in these first seven study units were resampled for water quality from August 2007 to November 2008 as part of an assessment of temporal trends in water quality by the GAMA-PBP. The initial sampling was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within the seven study units. In the 7 study units, 462 wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area. Wells selected this way are referred to as grid wells or status wells. Approximately 3 years after the initial sampling, 55 of these previously sampled status wells (approximately 10 percent in each study unit) were randomly selected for resampling. The seven resampled study units, the total number of status wells sampled for each study unit, and the number of these wells resampled for trends are as follows, in chronological order of sampling: San Diego Drainages (53 status wells, 7 trend wells), North San Francisco Bay (84, 10), Northern San Joaquin Basin (51, 5), Southern Sacramento Valley (67, 7), San Fernando–San Gabriel (35, 6), Monterey Bay and Salinas Valley Basins (91, 11), and Southeast San Joaquin Valley (83, 9). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides, and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), and naturally-occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements). Naturally-occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water) also were measured to help identify processes affecting groundwater quality and the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. Nearly 300 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) were collected at 24 percent of the 55 status wells resampled for trends, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples were mostly within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptably low variability in analytical results. Matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for 75 percent of the compounds for which matrix spikes were collected. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. The benchmarks used in this report apply to treated water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. To provide some context for the results, however, concentrations of constituents measured in these groundwater samples were compared with benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the trend wells were found at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Four VOCs—trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, and methyl tert-butyl ether—were detected in one or more wells at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks, and six VOCs were detected in at least 10 percent of the samples during initial sampling or resampling of the trend wells. No pesticides were detected at concentrations near or greater than their health-based benchmarks. Three pesticide constituents—atrazine, deethylatrazine, and simazine—were detected in more than 10 percent of the trend-well samples during both sampling periods. Perchlorate, a constituent of special interest, was detected more frequently, and at greater concentrations during resampling than during initial sampling, but this may be due to a change in analytical method between the sampling periods, rather than to a change in groundwater quality. Another constituent of special interest, 1,2,3-TCP, was also detected more frequently during resampling than during initial sampling, but this pattern also may not reflect a change in groundwater quality. Samples from several of the wells where 1,2,3-TCP was detected by low-concentration-level analysis during resampling were not analyzed for 1,2,3-TCP using a low-level method during initial sampling. Most detections of nutrients and trace elements in samples from trend wells were less than health-based benchmarks during both sampling periods. Exceptions include nitrate, arsenic, boron, and vanadium, all detected at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks in at least one well during both sampling periods, and molybdenum, detected at concentrations greater than its health-based benchmark during resampling only. The isotopic ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in water and tritium and carbon-14 activities generally changed little between sampling periods, suggesting that the predominant sources and ages of groundwater in most trend wells were consistent between the sampling periods.

California↗
USGS2014

Groundwater-quality data in the Klamath Mountains study unit, 2010: results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 8,806-square-mile Klamath Mountains (KLAM) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from October to December 2010, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The KLAM study unit was the thirty-third study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Klamath Mountains study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated-groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer system is defined by the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the KLAM study unit. Groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from the quality in the shallower or deeper water-bearing zones; shallower groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the KLAM study unit, groundwater samples were collected from sites in Del Norte, Siskiyou, Humboldt, Trinity, Tehama, and Shasta Counties, California. Of the 39 sites sampled, 38 were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the primary aquifer system in the study unit (grid sites), and the remaining site was non-randomized (understanding site). The groundwater samples were analyzed for basic field parameters, organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and pesticides and pesticide degradates), inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, total dissolved solids [TDS]), radon-222, gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, and microbial indicators (total coliform and Escherichia coli [E. coli]). Isotopic tracers (stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water, isotopic ratios of dissolved strontium in water, and stable isotopes of carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon), dissolved noble gases, and age-dating tracers (tritium and carbon-14) were measured to help identify sources and ages of sampled groundwater. Quality-control samples (field blanks, replicate sample pairs, and matrix spikes) were collected at 13 percent of the sites in the KLAM study unit, and the results were used to evaluate the quality of the data from the groundwater samples. Field blank samples rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, indicating that contamination from sample collection or analysis was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. More than 99 percent of the replicate pair samples were within acceptable limits of variability. Matrix-spike sample recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 91 percent of the compounds. This study did not evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is delivered to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH, and to non-health-based benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by the CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. All concentrations of organic constituents from grid sites sampled in the KLAM study unit were less than health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 16 of the 38 grid sites sampled (approximately 42 percent), pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 8 grid sites (about 21 percent), and microbial indicators were detected in 14 grid sites (approximately 37 percent). Inorganic constituents (trace elements, major and minor ions, nutrients, and uranium and other radioactive constituents) and microbial indicators were sampled for at 38 grid sites, and all concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks, with the exception of one detection of boron greater than the CDPH notification level of 1,000 micrograms per liter (μg/L). Generally, concentrations of inorganic constituents with non-health-based benchmarks (iron, manganese, chloride, and TDS) were less than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA). Exceptions include three detections of iron greater than the SMCL-CA of 300 μg/L, four detections of manganese greater than the SMCL-CA of 50 μg/L, one detection of chloride greater than the recommended SMCL-CA of 250 μg/L, and one detection of TDS greater than the recommended SMCL-CA of 500 μg/L.

California↗
USGS2014

Groundwater-quality data in the Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers study unit, 2011-2012: results from the California GAMA program

Groundwater quality in the 2,400-square-mile Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers (Hard Rock) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from March 2011 through March 2012, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Hard Rock study unit was the 35th study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Hard Rock study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated-groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer system is defined as those parts of the aquifers corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) water-quality-monitoring database for the Hard Rock study unit. Groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from the quality in the shallower or deeper water-bearing zones; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the Hard Rock study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 112 wells and springs in 3 study areas (the Santa Cruz, the San Gabriel, and the Peninsular Ranges) in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Eighty-three wells and 11 springs were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and 15 wells and 3 springs were selected to aid in evaluation of water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for field water-quality indicators; organic constituents; one constituent of special interest (perchlorate); naturally occurring inorganic constituents; and radioactive constituents. Naturally occurring isotopes and dissolved noble gases were also measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 209 constituents and water-quality indicators were measured. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at approximately 10 percent of the wells in the Hard Rock study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate samples generally were within the limits of acceptable analytical reproducibility. Median matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 92 percent of the compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH, and to nonregulatory benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by the CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. All organic constituents and most inorganic constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the 112 wells in the Hard Rock study unit were detected at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Of the 149 organic and special-interest constituents, 34 were detected in groundwater samples; concentrations of all detected constituents were less than regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 44 percent of the 94 grid wells sampled, pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 18 percent, and perchlorate was detected in 48 percent. Trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, and radioactive constituents were sampled for at 94 grid wells; most detected concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks. Exceptions in the Hard Rock study unit grid wells include 3 detections of arsenic greater than the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L), 3 detections of boron greater than the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) of 1,000 μg/L, 2 detections of molybdenum greater than the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) of 40 μg/L, 2 detections of nitrite plus nitrate (as nitrogen) greater than the MCL-US of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 3 detections of fluoride greater than the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA) of 2 mg/L, 5 detections of radon-222 greater than the proposed MCL-US of 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and 11 detections of unadjusted gross alpha radioactivity greater than the MCL-US of 15 pCi/L. Seven of the 11 samples having unadjusted gross alpha activity greater than the MCL-US also had total uranium concentrations greater than the MCL-US of 30 μg/L and (or) uranium activities greater than the MCL-CA of 20 pCi/L. Results for constituents with nonregulatory benchmarks set for aesthetic concerns showed that iron concentrations greater than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) of 300 μg/L were detected in samples from 19 grid wells. Manganese concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA of 50 μg/L were detected in 27 grid wells. Chloride was detected at a concentration greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 500 mg/L in one grid well. TDS concentrations in three grid wells were greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 1,000 mg/L.

California↗
USGS2015

Groundwater quality data in 15 GAMA study units: results from the 2006–10 Initial sampling and the 2009–13 resampling of wells, California GAMA Priority Basin Project

The Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). From May 2004 to March 2012, the GAMA-PBP collected samples from more than 2,300 wells in 35 study units across the State. Selected wells in each study unit were sampled again approximately 3 years after initial sampling as part of an assessment of temporal trends in water quality by the GAMA-PBP. This triennial (every 3 years) trend sampling of GAMA-PBP study units concluded in December 2013. Fifteen of the study units, initially sampled between January 2006 and June 2010 and sampled a second time between April 2009 and April 2013 to assess temporal trends, are the subject of this report. The initial sampling was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated groundwater used for public water supplies in the 15 study units. In these study units, 730 wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the areas assessed (grid wells, also called “status wells”). Approximately 3 years after the initial sampling, 93 of the previously sampled status wells (approximately 10 percent in each study unit) were randomly selected for trend sampling (“trend wells”). The 15 study units sampled for trends were distributed among 4 hydrogeologic provinces: Central Valley, Basin and Range, Desert, and Transverse and selected Peninsular Ranges. The total number of status wells sampled, along with those sampled again for trends, varied by study unit. In the Central Valley hydrogeologic province, the numbers of status wells and trend wells in each study unit were as follows: Kern County subbasin study unit—47 status wells, 5 trend wells Central Eastside San Joaquin Basin study unit—58 status wells, 6 trend wells Middle Sacramento Valley study unit—71 status wells, 8 trend wells Northern Sacramento Valley study unit—43 status wells, 4 trend wells Madera–Chowchilla study unit—30 status wells, 4 trend wells Western San Joaquin Valley study unit—39 status wells, 4 trend wells. The Basin and Range hydrogeologic province had only one study unit: Owens and Indian Wells Valleys study unit—53 status wells, 6 trend wells. In the Desert hydrogeologic province, the numbers of wells were as follows: Coachella Valley study unit—19 status wells 4 trend wells Colorado River study unit—20 status wells, 3 trend wells Antelope Valley study unit—56 status wells, 6 trend wells Mojave study unit—52 status wells, 7 trend wells Borrego Valley, Central Desert and Low-Use Basins of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts study unit—49 status wells, 6 trend wells. In the Transverse and Selected Peninsular Ranges hydrogeologic province, the numbers of wells were as follows: Coastal Los Angeles Basin study unit—61 status wells, 8 trend wells Upper Santa Ana Watershed study unit—90 status wells, 16 trend wells Santa Clara River Valley study unit—42 status wells, 6 trend wells. The groundwater samples were analyzed for a number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), and naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements). Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water) also were measured to help identify processes affecting groundwater quality and the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. More than 200 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, or samples for matrix spikes) were collected at 34 percent of the trend wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. On the basis of detections in laboratory and field blanks in samples from GAMA-PBP study units, including the study units presented here, some groundwater results were adjusted in this report. Differences between replicate samples were mostly within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptably low variability in analytical results. Median matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for 189 of the 224 compounds for which matrix spikes were analyzed (84 percent). This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater used for drinking water typically is treated, disinfected, and blended with other waters to attain acceptable water quality. The benchmarks used in this report apply to treated water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. To provide some context for the results, however, concentrations of constituents measured in these groundwater samples were compared with benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Public Health. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking-water quality are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the trend wells were found at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Two volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene—were detected in samples from one or more wells at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks, and three VOCs—chloroform, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene—were detected in at least 10 percent of the trend-well samples from the initial sampling period and the later trend sampling period. No pesticides were detected at concentrations near or greater than their health-based benchmarks. Three pesticide constituents—atrazine, deethylatrazine, and simazine—were detected in more than 10 percent of the trend-well samples in both sampling periods. Perchlorate, a constituent of special interest, was detected at a concentration greater than its health-based benchmark in samples from one trend well in the initial sampling and trend sampling periods, and in an additional trend well sample only in the trend sampling period. Most detections of nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements in samples from trend wells were less than health-based benchmarks in both sampling periods. Exceptions included nitrate, fluoride, arsenic, boron, molybdenum, strontium, and uranium; these were all detected at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks in at least one well sample in both sampling periods. Lead and vanadium were detected above their health-based benchmarks in one sample each collected in the initial sampling period only. The isotopic ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in water and the activities of tritium and carbon-14 generally changed little between sampling periods.

California↗
USGS1998

Microbiological quality of public-water supplies in the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system, Missouri

In 1986, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to promulgate disinfection requirements for all public-water supplies. The USEPA promulgated the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) in June 1989 to establish disinfection requirements for surface-water supplies and for ground water under the direct influence of surface water. To complete the requirements of the SDWA, the USEPA plans to propose and promulgate disinfection requirements for ground water not under the direct influence of surface water to protect the public health of persons served by those systems.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1996

U. S. Geological Survey programs in Wisconsin

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has served as the Nation’s principal collector, repository, and interpreter of earth science data for more than a century. In this capacity, the USGS in Wisconsin works in partnership with State, county, municipal public works departments, public health agencies, water and sanitation districts, Indian agencies, and other Federal agencies. This Fact Sheet describes some of the current USGS activities in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin↗
USGS2002

Spatial data available on the web at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/

Earth science information is important to decisionmakers who formulate public policy related to mineral resource sustainability, land stewardship, environmental hazards, the economy, and public health. To meet the growing demand for easily accessible data, the Mineral Resources Program has developed, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, an Internet-based, data-delivery system that allows interested customers worldwide to download accurate, up-to-date mineral resource-related data at any time. All data in the system are spatially located and customers with Internet access and a modern Web browser can easily produce maps having user-defined overlays for any region of interest.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

Biological conditions in streams of Johnson County, Kansas, and nearby Missouri, 2003 and 2004

Johnson County is one of the fastest growing and most populated counties in Kansas. Urban development affects streams by altering stream hydrology, geomorphology, water chemistry, and habitat, which then can lead to adverse effects on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. In addition, increasing sources of contaminants in urbanizing streams results in public-health concerns associated with exposure to and consumption of contaminated water. Biological assessments, or surveys of organisms living in aquatic environments, are crucial components of water-quality programs because they provide an indication of how well water bodies support aquatic life. This fact sheet describes current biological conditions of Johnson County streams and characterizes stream biology relative to urban development. Biological conditions were evaluated by collecting macroinvertebrate samples from 15 stream sites in Johnson County, Kansas, in 2003 and 2004 (fig. 1). Data from seven additional sites, collected as part of a separate study with similar objectives in Kansas and Missouri (Wilkison and others, 2005), were evaluated to provide a more comprehensive assessment of watersheds that cross State boundaries. Land-use and water- and streambed-sediment-quality data also were used to evaluate factors that may affect macroinvertebrate communities. Metrics are indices used to measure, or evaluate, macroinvertebrate response to various factors such as human disturbance. Multimetric scores, which integrated 10 different metrics that measure various aspects of macroinvertebrate communities, including organism diversity, composition, tolerance, and feeding characteristics, were used to evaluate and compare biological health of Johnson County streams. This information is useful to city and county officials for defining current biological conditions, evaluating conditions relative to State biological criteria, evaluating effects of urbanization, developing effective water-quality management plans, and documenting changes in biological conditions and water quality.

Kansas, Missouri↗
USGS2007

Questions and Answers About the Effects of Septic Systems on Water Quality in the La Pine Area, Oregon

Nitrate levels in the ground-water aquifer underlying the central Oregon city of La Pine and the surrounding area are increasing due to contamination from residential septic systems. This contamination has public health implications because ground water is the sole source of drinking water for area residents. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Deschutes County and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, studied the movement and chemistry of nitrate in the aquifer and developed computer models that can be used to predict future nitrate levels and to evaluate alternatives for protecting water quality. This fact sheet summarizes the results of that study in the form of questions and answers.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Trace Contamination of Streams and Beaches

Concentrations of fecal-indicator bacteria in urban streams and ocean beaches in and around Santa Barbara occasionally can exceed public-health standards for recreation. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), working with the City of Santa Barbara, has used multi-disciplinary science to trace the sources of the bacteria. This research is helping local agencies take steps to improve recreational water quality. The USGS used an approach that combined traditional hydrologic and microbiological data, with state-of-the-art genetic, molecular, and chemical tracer analysis. This research integrated physical data on streamflow, ground water, and near-shore oceanography, and made extensive use of modern geophysical and isotopic techniques. Using those techniques, the USGS was able to evaluate the movement of water and the exchange of ground water with near-shore ocean water. The USGS has found that most fecal bacteria in the urban streams came from storm-drain discharges, with the highest concentrations occurring during storm flow. During low streamflow, the concentrations varied as much as three-fold, owing to variable contribution of non-point sources such as outdoor water use and urban runoff to streamflow. Fecal indicator bacteria along ocean beaches were from both stream discharge to the ocean and from non-point sources such as bird fecal material that accumulates in kelp and sand at the high-tide line. Low levels of human-specific Bacteroides, suggesting fecal material from a human source, were consistently detected on area beaches. One potential source, a local sewer line buried beneath the beach, was found not to be responsible for the fecal bacteria.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

A Landscape Indicator Approach to the Identification and Articulation of the Ecological Consequences of Land Cover Change in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1970-2000

The advancement of geographic science in the area of land surface status and trends and land cover change is at the core of the current geographic scientific research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (McMahon and others, 2005). Perhaps the least developed or articulated aspects of USGS land change science have been the identification and analysis of the ecological consequences of land cover change. Changes in land use and land cover significantly affect the ability of ecosystems to provide essential ecological goods and services, which, in turn, affect the economic, public health, and social benefits that these ecosystems provide. One of the great scientific challenges for geographic science is to understand and calibrate the effects of land use and land cover change and the complex interaction between human and biotic systems at a variety of natural, geographic, and political scales. Understanding the dynamics of land surface change requires an increased understanding of the complex nature of human-environmental systems and will require a suite of scientific tools that include traditional geographic data and analysis methods, such as remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS), as well as innovative approaches to understanding the dynamics of complex systems. One such approach that has gained much recent scientific attention is the landscape indicator, or landscape assessment, approach, which has been developed with the emergence of the science of landscape ecology.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

Groundwater quality in the Madera and Chowchilla subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley, California

Groundwater provides more than 40 percent of California’s drinking water. To protect this vital resource, the State of California created the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The Priority Basin Project of the GAMA Program provides a comprehensive assessment of the State’s untreated groundwater quality and increases public access to groundwater-quality information. The Madera and Chowchilla subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley constitute one of the study units being evaluated. The Madera-Chowchilla study unit is about 860 square miles and consists of the Madera and Chowchilla groundwater subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Basin (California Department of Water Resources, 2003; Shelton and others, 2009). The study unit has hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Average annual rainfall ranges from 11 to 15 inches, most of which occurs between November and February. The main surface-water features in the study unit are the San Joaquin, Fresno, and Chowchilla Rivers, and the Madera and Chowchilla canals. Land use in the study unit is about 69 percent (%) agricultural, 28% natural (mainly grasslands), and 3% urban. The primary crops are orchards and vineyards. The largest urban area is the city of Madera. The primary aquifer system is defined as those parts of the aquifer corresponding to the perforated intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database. In the Madera-Chowchilla study unit, these wells typically are drilled to depths between 200 and 800 feet, consist of a solid casing from land surface to a depth of about 140 to 400 feet, and are perforated below the solid casing. Water quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from that in the shallower and deeper parts of the aquifer system. The primary aquifer system in the study unit consists of Quaternary-age alluvial-fan and fluvial deposits that were formed by the rivers draining the Sierra Nevada. Sediments consist of gravels, sands, silts, and clays and generally are coarser closest to the Sierra Nevada and become finer towards the center of the basin. The structure and composition of the deposits in the Madera-Chowchilla study unit are different from those in other parts of the eastern San Joaquin Valley because the Fresno and Chowchilla Rivers primarily drain the Sierra Nevada foothills, whereas the larger rivers drain higher elevations with greater sediment supply. These differences in the sources of sediments are important because they may affect the groundwater chemistry and the physical structure of the sedimentary deposits. Some of the clay layers are lacustrine deposits, the most extensive of which, the Corcoran Clay, underlies the western part of the study unit and divides the primary aquifer system into an unconfined to semi-confined upper system and a largely confined lower system. Regional lateral flow of groundwater is southwest towards the valley trough. Irrigation return flows are the major source of groundwater recharge, and groundwater pumping is the major source of discharge. Groundwater on a lateral flow path may be repeatedly extracted by pumping wells and reapplied at the surface multiple times before reaching the valley trough, resulting in a substantial component of downward vertical flow (Burow and others, 2004; Phillips and others, 2007; Faunt, 2009). This flow pattern enhances movement of water from shallow depths to the primary aquifer system.

California↗
USGS2013

California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Priority Basin Project--shallow aquifer assessment

The California State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GAMA Program is a comprehensive assessment of statewide groundwater quality in California. From 2004 to 2012, the GAMA Program’s Priority Basin Project focused on assessing groundwater resources used for public drinking-water supplies. More than 2,000 public-supply wells were sampled by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for this effort. Starting in 2012, the GAMA Priority Basin Project began an assessment of water resources in shallow aquifers in California. These shallow aquifers provide water for domestic and small community-supply wells, which are often drilled to shallower depths in the groundwater system than public-supply wells. Shallow aquifers are of interest because shallow groundwater may respond more quickly and be more susceptible to contamination from human activities at the land surface, than the deeper aquifers. The SWRCB’s GAMA Program was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 (Water Code sections 10780-10782.3): a public mandate to assess and monitor the quality of groundwater resources used for drinking-water supplies, and to increase the availability of information about groundwater quality to the public. The U.S. Geological Survey is the technical lead of the Priority Basin Project. Stewardship of California’s groundwater resources is a responsibility shared between well owners, communities, and the State. Participants and collaborators in the GAMA Program include Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Department of Water Resources, Department of Public Health, local and regional groundwater management entities, county and local water agencies, community groups, and private citizens. Well-owner participation in the GAMA Program is entirely voluntary.

California↗
USGS2016

U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Hazards Program—Assess, forecast, prepare, engage

At least 170 volcanoes in 12 States and 2 territories have erupted in the past 12,000 years and have the potential to erupt again. Consequences of eruptions from U.S. volcanoes can extend far beyond the volcano’s immediate area. Many aspects of our daily life are vulnerable to volcano hazards, including air travel, regional power generation and transmission infrastructure, interstate transportation, port facilities, communications infrastructure, and public health. The U.S. Geological Survey has the Federal responsibility to issue timely warnings of potential volcanic activity to the affected populace and civil authorities. The Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) is funded to carry out that mission and does so through a combination of volcano monitoring, short-term warnings, research on how volcanoes work, and community education and outreach.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2023

Hydrologic investigations of green infrastructure by the Central Midwest Water Science Center

The water management system within developed communities includes stormwater, wastewater, and drinking-water sources and sinks. Each water management system component provides critical services that support public health in these areas. Stormwater can be quite variable and difficult to manage in developed communities because the amount of stormwater that must be routed through a developed area depends on changing land cover and variable precipitation. In addition to flooding concerns, stormwater also is a major cause of water contamination in developed communities because it carries contaminants such as trash, bacteria, heavy metals, and sediments to local waterways. Historically, communities have managed stormwater with gray infrastructure such as street gutters, culverts, sewer systems, and tunnels. Although these structures efficiently capture and route stormwater to a local waterway or treatment plant, they do not filter any contaminants. Furthermore, many older communities have combined storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems. These combined systems result in an excessive amount of wastewater to be treated before being released into receiving water or the untreated waters are released directly to receiving waters during storms. Many communities are now incorporating green infrastructure stormwater mitigating solutions—pervious surfaces (allows water through), grassed swales, bioretention basins, and rain gardens—into their stormwater-management systems. Green infrastructure can absorb and filter stormwater where it falls by taking advantage of natural soil and plant storage and filtration capabilities. Thus, green infrastructure projects can potentially reduce the amount of stormwater and the concentration and transport of contaminants. Increasing green infrastructure in a developed community may reduce the requirements for new storm sewer infrastructure, improve the water quality of nearby waterways, and enhance aesthetics. The U.S. Geological Survey has partnered with several cooperators to quantify the effects of green infrastructure projects in several developed communities throughout the central Midwest. As part of these green infrastructure projects, the U.S. Geological Survey Central Midwest Water Science Center and cooperators installed, calibrated, and monitored equipment to measure hydrologic responses (including flooding and water movement) and selected water-quality constituents in developed communities.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2024

The U.S. Geological Survey Ohio Water Microbiology Laboratory

The U.S. Geological Survey Ohio Water Microbiology Laboratory is a part of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Water Science Center. The mission of the laboratory is to provide microbiological data of public health significance from surface waters, groundwaters, and sediments for a variety of study objectives. The laboratory conducts internal projects, works with external cooperators, and assists U.S. Geological Survey offices and National programs. The laboratory offers guidance, study design, and data interpretation expertise to collaborators, all following rigorous quality control and quality assurance procedures.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2019

Wildland fire science at the U.S. Geological Survey—Supporting wildland fire and land management across the United States postcard

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Wildland Fire Science Program produces information to identify the causes of wildfires, understand the impacts and benefits of both wildfires and prescribed fires, and help prevent and manage larger, catastrophic events. USGS fire scientists provide information and develop tools that are widely used by stakeholders to make decisions before, during, and after wildfires in desert, grassland, tundra, wetland, and forest ecosystems across the United States. Active areas of research include— Wildland fire behavior and risk management Fire ecology, fire effects, and post-fire restoration of ecosystems Risk assessments for human health, public safety, and the Nation’s infrastructure Remote sensing and geospatial tools and data.

General Information Product↗
USGS2022

Decision-making for managing harmful algal blooms

Cyanobacteria are a global water-quality concern because these organisms can develop into harmful blooms that affect ecologic, economic, and public health. U.S. Geological Survey scientists worked with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to develop a structured decision-making template for managing cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms. This approach can help natural resource managers make decisions to manage water bodies threatened by harmful algal blooms.

New York↗