Geology topics

Jeramy Roland Jasmann

Publications and source records attributed to Jeramy Roland Jasmann.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

Gaps in water quality modeling of hydrologic systems

This review assesses gaps in water quality modeling, emphasizing opportunities to improve next-generation models that are essential for managing water quality and are integral to meeting goals of scientific and management agencies. In particular, this paper identifies gaps in water quality modeling capabilities that, if addressed, could support assessments, projections, and evaluations of management alternatives to support ecosystem health and human beneficial use of water resources. It covers surface water and groundwater quality modeling, dealing with a broad suite of physical, biogeochemical, and anthropogenic drivers. Modeling capabilities for six constituents (or constituent categories) are explored: water temperature, salinity, nutrients, sediment, geogenic constituents, and contaminants of emerging concern. Each constituent was followed through the coupled atmospheric-hydrologic-human system, with prominent modeling gaps described for a diverse array of relevant inputs, processes, and human activities. Commonly identified modeling gaps primarily fall under three types: (1) model gaps, (2) data gaps, and (3) process understanding gaps. In addition to potential solutions for addressing specific individual modeling limitations, some broad approaches (e.g., enhanced data collection and compilation, machine learning, reduced-complexity modeling) are discussed as ways forward for tackling multiple gaps. This gap analysis establishes a framework of diverse approaches that may support improved process representation, scale, and accuracy of models for a wide range of water quality issues.

Water↗

USGS2024

Connecting conservation practices to local stream health in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

The Chesapeake Bay Partnership is implementing conservation practices (CPs) throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce nutrient and sediment delivery to the Bay. This study intends to provide an integrated and detailed understanding of how local streams respond to these CP-driven management efforts. Key issue: To what extent do CPs positively affect the health of local streams in the nontidal watershed (cobenefits)? Critical unknown: How do CPs change water quality and the stressors that affect stream aquatic life? Which CPs improve stream health more effectively? Critical knowledge to be delivered to stakeholders includes— the effects of CPs on local water-quality conditions, the degree to which these same CPs also provide local stream-ecosystem benefits, and a deeper understanding of local stream-ecosystems, including stressors and CPs, to guide the selection of management efforts that enhance both water quality and overall stream-ecosystem health.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS2024

Integrated science for the study of microplastics in the environment—A strategic science vision for the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Evidence of the widespread occurrence of microplastics throughout our environment and exposure to humans and other organisms over the past decade has led to questions about the possibility of health hazards and mitigation of exposures. This document discusses nanoplastics as well as microplastics (referred to solely as microplastics); the microplastics have a range from 1 micrometer to 5 millimeters (1 μm–5 mm) in length, whereas the nanoplastics are less than 1 μm in length (sidebar ES1). A myriad of environmental exposure pathways with microplastics to humans and wildlife, including ingestion, inhalation, and bodily absorption, are likely to exist. A growing body of evidence has documented bioaccumulation of microplastics in tissues and organs of humans and wildlife, benthic community effects, and potential nutritional and reproductive effects in some wildlife species. Understanding if or when environmental exposures pose a health risk is complicated by the diversity of microplastic sizes, morphologies, polymer types, and chemicals added during manufacturing or sorbed from the environment; ongoing challenges in analytical methods used to detect, quantify, and characterize microplastics and associated chemicals in our ecosystems; and the fact that ecotoxicological studies regarding microplastics are still in their infancy. Therefore, the study of environmental exposures and potential related health hazards of microplastics to the public and wildlife is a One Health (sidebar ES2) research topic that necessitates integrated science approaches. A better understanding of the sources, pathways, fate, and biological effects of microplastics has become a priority of the Federal Government, State governments, Tribes, stakeholders, and the public. Examples of Federal and State microplasticfocused legislation and programs to prioritize microplastic research and reduction include the Federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, California Senate Bills 1422 and 1263 (2018), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Trash Free Waters Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Microplastic and Nanoplastic Metrology project, and Minnesota’s microplastic project. With its unique expertise and capabilities, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is well positioned to help fill some of the most important microplastic science gaps. This strategic science vision document for microplastics identifies current (2023) microplastic science gaps and prioritizes research relevant to the mission, expertise, and capabilities of the USGS. It is intended for USGS scientists and stakeholders to use as a starting point for planning, prioritizing, and designing collaborative environmental microplastic science. Many of the microplastic science gaps and priorities are scalable, from local to national, and thus, can be made commensurate with available funding and evolving analytical and field tools, laboratory capacity, and stakeholder needs. Current (2023) or future research by academia and other Federal or State agencies, and Tribes may be aimed at some of the same microplastic science gaps identified in this document. Therefore, this document can be used as an information resource to maximize strengths and capabilities and minimize redundancy in communication and collaboration.

Circular↗

USGS2024

Assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in water resources of New Mexico, 2020–21

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been detected in public and private drinking-water wells, springs, and surface waters in New Mexico; however, the presence and distribution of PFAS in water resources across the State are not well characterized. From August 2020 to October 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the New Mexico Environment Department, collected water-quality samples from groundwater and surface-water sites throughout New Mexico. One hundred and seventeen groundwater wells were sampled from unconfined water-table aquifers for PFAS and a geochemical suite including major ions, trace elements, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen, tritium, and carbon-14 to provide context for groundwater age and geochemical evolution. Eighteen surface-water samples were analyzed for PFAS, and select samples were analyzed for wastewater tracers, major ions, trace elements, and DOC. Blanks and replicates indicated low bias and variability for PFAS, wastewater tracers, and geochemical compounds. Twenty-seven of the 117 groundwater sites had PFAS concentrations reported above the detection level, and there were no exceedances of the 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) perfluorooctanoic acid plus perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. Twenty-two sites were resampled and showed similar signatures, excluding some springs. Total PFAS concentrations ranged from 0.91 to 80.3 ng/L. The most frequently detected PFAS at groundwater sites were perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS; 11 sites), perfluoropentanoic acid (10 sites), and perfluorohexanoic acid (9 sites). Correlations were found between certain PFAS compounds that suggest similar sources. PFAS were also correlated with tritium, DOC, and nitrate, which indicated that a presence of anthropogenic compounds could in turn indicate a likelihood of PFAS occurrence. In addition, a cluster analysis showed that varying geochemical processes and sources of anthropogenic compounds likely contribute to the PFAS signature of each groundwater sample. Surface-water samples showed variable total PFAS concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 155.4 ng/L. Sites downstream from urban areas showed numerous PFAS detections. Some undeveloped areas where minimal PFAS detections would be expected had PFAS detections. Correlations between PFAS were found that suggested similar sources. Perfluoropentanoic acid and PFBS were the most frequently detected PFAS, and PFBS had the highest single concentration of 93 ng/L. Results of the study provide an overview of PFAS occurrences in the water resources of New Mexico along with geochemical context and are used to identify areas for further scientific investigations that could further characterize PFAS occurrences in New Mexico.

New Mexico↗

USGS2024

Temporal variability and sources of PFAS in the Rio Grande, New Mexico through an arid urban area using multiple tracers and high-frequency sampling

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are ubiquitous in the environment but sources are not well defined for temporal and spatial aspects within an urban environment, and especially for an arid urban environment subject to seasonal short term high-intensity precipitation events. A focused diel sampling was conducted in the summer of 2021 to assess the temporal and spatial variability of PFAS in the Rio Grande near Albuquerque, New Mexico and showed an order of magnitude increase of PFAS as it flows through the Albuquerque urban area. Discrete samples were collected at two different locations on the Rio Grande in addition to wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent that discharges directly to the Rio Grande between the sampling locations. Short-term high-intensity precipitation events occurred during the study period and mobilized PFAS from urban runoff. Dissolved organic matter composed of tryptophan-like organic substances and refined fuel and fuel byproducts, characteristic of an urban signature, were also related to the precipitation events. The PFAS in discharge from the WWTP was consistent over a 24-h period with slight differences in some compounds. Wastewater presence on the Rio Grande downstream of the WWTP was evidenced by a gadolinium anomaly as well as increases in several other trace elements, total dissolved nitrogen, and fluorescence indicators, in addition to PFAS. PFAS varied depending on source contribution, where urban runoff was associated with PFOA, PFOS, and PFBA, whereas PFHxA and PFPeA were associated with wastewater effluent. In addition, passive polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) using hydrophilic-lipid balance (HLB) sorption media were deployed for a month at two locations on the Rio Grande to assess longer term PFAS concentrations. The POCIS results show some compounds (PFPeA and PFHpA) were greater than the average concentration from discrete samples, whereas other compounds (PFHxA, PFOA, PFDA, and PFNA) were lower in the POCIS, and PFOS was very similar between the two. The POCIS did not detect PFBA, which may be related to the HLB media not performing well for short chain PFAS compounds. The results show promise for integrative samplers utilizing sorbent media. More detailed investigation of the spatial and temporal variability of water chemistry on the Rio Grande as it flows through Albuquerque could provide information applicable to urban areas worldwide.

New Mexico↗

USGS2024

Factors contributing to pesticide contamination in riverine systems: The role of wastewater and landscape sources

Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges can be a source of organic contaminants, including pesticides, to rivers. An integrated model was developed for the Potomac River watershed (PRW) to determine the amount of accumulated wastewater percentage of streamflow (ACCWW) and calculate predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) for 14 pesticides in non-tidal National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2.1 stream segments. Predicted environmental concentrations were compared to measured environmental concentrations (MECs) from 32 stream sites that represented a range of ACCWW and land use to evaluate model performance and to assess possible non-WWTP loading sources. Statistical agreement between PECs and MECs was strongest for insecticides, followed by fungicides and herbicides. Principal component analysis utilizing optical fluorescence and ancillary water quality data identified wastewater and urban runoff sources. Pesticides that indicated relatively larger sources from WWTPs included dinotefuran, fipronil, carbendazim, thiabendazole, and prometon whereas imidacloprid, azoxystrobin, propiconazole, tebuconazole, and diuron were more related to urban runoff. In addition, PECs generally comprised a low proportion of MECs, which indicates possible dominant loading sources beyond WWTP discharges. Cumulative potential toxicity was higher for sites with greater ACCWW and/or located in developed areas. Imidacloprid, fipronil, and carbendazim accounted for the largest portion of predicted potential toxicity across sites. The chronic aquatic life toxicity benchmarks for freshwater invertebrates were exceeded for 82 % of the imidacloprid detections ( n = 28) and 47 % of the fipronil detections ( n = 19). These results highlight the ecological implications of pesticide contamination from WWTP discharges and also the potential legacy effects from accumulated soil and groundwater sources. Pesticide management strategies that mitigate both current and historical impacts may improve the health of aquatic ecosystems.

Potomac River watershed↗

USGS2023

Wastewater reuse and predicted ecological risk posed by contaminant mixtures in Potomac River watershed streams

A wastewater model was applied to the Potomac River watershed to provide (i) a means to identify streams with a high likelihood of carrying elevated effluent-derived contaminants and (ii) risk assessments to aquatic life and drinking water. The model linked effluent discharges along stream networks, accumulated wastewater, and predicted contaminant loads of municipal wastewater constituents while accounting for instream dilution and attenuation. Simulations using 2016 data suggested that nearly 30% (8281 km) of streams were wastewater impacted. Low- to medium-order streams had the largest range of accumulated wastewater (ACCWW%) values. ACCWW% exceeded a 1% threshold at >39% of drinking-water intakes (varied by temporal condition). Risk assessments of municipal wastewater-contaminant mixtures indicated that 22% (1479 km) of streams impacted by municipal wastewater (5.5% of all reaches modeled) may pose high risk to aquatic organisms under mean-annual conditions, with fish more susceptible to chronic-exposure effects relative to other taxa. Risk varied temporally and by stream order, with the greatest risk occurring in the summer in small streams. These findings suggest that wastewater may be an important factor contributing to environmental degradation in the Potomac River watershed.

District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virg↗

USGS2023

Utilizing anthropogenic compounds and geochemical tracers to identify preferential structurally controlled groundwater pathways influencing springs in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA

Study region: This study focuses on the Colorado River watershed in the area along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. Study focus: This study utilizes anthropogenic chemical tracers to investigate the fate of treated wastewater effluent discharged within Grand Canyon National Park. Anthropogenic chemical tracers were used to discern preferential structurally controlled pathways in a complex regional network of faults and fractures in which some are conduits and others barriers to flow. New hydrological insights for the region : Previous investigations on water resources of Grand Canyon have suggested two different discharge locations (Garden Springs versus Monument Spring) for the treated wastewater discharged on the South Rim of Grand Canyon yet the presence of wastewater at the springs remained unstudied for decades. The treated wastewater from Grand Canyon Village is released into Bright Angel Wash that flows along the surface expression of the Bright Angel Fault and past the inferred intersection with the perpendicular Monument Fault. Multiple anthropogenic compounds (pharmaceuticals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and elevated nitrate) were found in Bright Angel Wash and Monument Spring. Stable isotopic measurements at Monument Spring show depletion over time also suggesting contribution from a depleted stable isotopic source found in the treated wastewater. The anthropogenic tracers utilized in this study provide good insight to which geologic structures are conduits versus barriers to flow and can be useful in other fracture flow and karst settings.

Arizona↗

USGS2022

Watershed-scale risk to aquatic organisms from complex chemical mixtures in the Shenandoah River

River waters contain complex chemical mixtures derived from natural and anthropogenic sources. Aquatic organisms are exposed to the entire chemical composition of the water, resulting in potential effects at the organismal through ecosystem level. This study applied a holistic approach to assess landscape, hydrological, chemical, and biological variables. On-site mobile laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate biological effects of exposure to chemical mixtures in the Shenandoah River Watershed. A suite of 534 inorganic and organic constituents were analyzed, of which 273 were detected. A watershed-scale accumulated wastewater model was developed to predict environmental concentrations of chemicals derived from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to assess potential aquatic organism exposure for all stream reaches in the watershed. Measured and modeled concentrations generally were within a factor of 2. Ecotoxicological effects from exposure to individual components of the chemical mixture were evaluated using risk quotients (RQs) based on measured or predicted environmental concentrations and no effect concentrations or chronic toxicity threshold values. Seventy-two percent of the compounds had RQ values <0.1, indicating limited risk from individual chemicals. However, when individual RQs were aggregated into a risk index, most stream reaches receiving WWTP effluent posed potential risk to aquatic organisms from exposure to complex chemical mixtures.

Virginia↗

USGS2020

Boreal blazes: Biomass burning and vegetation types archived in the Juneau Icefield

The past decade includes some of the most extensive boreal forest fires in the historical record. Warming temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, the desiccation of thick organic soil layers, and increased ignition from lightning all contribute to a combustive combination. Smoke aerosols travel thousands of kilometers, before blanketing the surfaces on which they fall, such as the Juneau Icefield. However, many aerosols found in smoke plumes are also produced by other processes and therefore can be ambiguous indicators of fire activity. Here, we use the monosaccharide anhydrides levoglucosan, mannosan, and galactosan as specific indicators of biomass burning to unambiguously demonstrate that fire aerosols reach the Juneau Icefield and are integrated into the snowpack. Back trajectories and satellite observations demonstrate that smoke plumes originating in central Alaska and eastern Siberia affect the Juneau Icefield. These regional sources of fire differ from other combustion aerosols deposited on the Juneau Icefield, such as black carbon, that originate from local fossil fuel burning. Ratios of levoglucosan/mannosan (L/M) and levoglucosan/(mannosan + galactosan) (L/(M + G)) demonstrate that while the majority of fire aerosols reaching the Juneau Icefield originate from softwood burning, grasslands and hardwood forests are also sources. The presence of these hardwoods suggests that fire aerosols may reach the Juneau Icefield from locations as far away as East Asia.

Alaska↗