Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr20111267

Assessment of Hyporheic Zone, Flood-Plain, Soil-Gas, Soil, and Surface-Water Contamination at the McCoys Creek Chemical Training Area, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2009-2010

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Army Environmental and Natural Resources Management Office of the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Georgia, assessed the hyporheic zone, flood plain, soil gas, soil, and surface water for contaminants at the McCoys Creek Chemical Training Area (MCTA) at Fort Gordon, from October 2009 to September 2010. The assessment included the detection of organic contaminants in the hyporheic zone, flood plain, soil gas, and surface water. In addition, the organic contaminant assessment included the analysis of organic compounds classified as explosives and chemical agents in selected areas. Inorganic contaminants were assessed in soil and surface-water samples. The assessment was conducted to provide environmental contamination data to the U.S. Army at Fort Gordon pursuant to requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part B Hazardous Waste Permit process. Ten passive samplers were deployed in the hyporheic zone and flood plain, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and octane were detected above the method detection level in every sampler. Other organic compounds detected above the method detection level in the hyporheic zone and flood-plain samplers were trichloroethylene, and cis- and trans- 1, 2-dichloroethylene. One trip blank detected TPH below the method detection level but above the nondetection level. The concentrations of TPH in the samplers were many times greater than the concentrations detected in the blank; therefore, all other TPH concentrations detected are considered to represent environmental conditions. Seventy-one soil-gas samplers were deployed in a grid pattern across the MCTA. Three trip blanks and three method blanks were used and not deployed, and TPH was detected above the method detection level in two trip blanks and one method blank. Detection of TPH was observed at all 71 samplers, but because TPH was detected in the trip and method blanks, TPH was censored and, therefore, only 7 of the 71 samplers were reported as detecting TPH. In addition, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylene were detected above the method detection level in 22 samplers. Other compounds detected above the method detection level included naphthalene, octane, undecane, tridecane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, chloroform, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Subsequent to the soil-gas survey, five locations with elevated contaminant mass were selected and a passive sampler was deployed at those locations to detect the presence of organic compounds classified as explosives or chemical agents. No explosives or chemical agents were detected above the method detection level, but some compounds were detected below the method detection level but above the nondetection level. Dimethyl disulfide, benzothiazole, chloroacetophenones, and para-chlorophenyl methyl sulfide were all detected below the method detection level but above the nondetection level. The compounds 2,4-dinitrotoluene, and para-chlorophenyl methyl sulfone were detected in samplers but also were detected in trip blanks and are not considered as present in the MCTA. The same five locations that were selected for sampling of explosives and chemical agents were selected for soil sampling. Metal concentrations in composite soil samples collected at five locations from land surface to a depth of 6 inches did not exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels for Industrial Soil. Concentrations in some compounds were higher than the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control background levels for nearby South Carolina, including aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and potassium. A surface-water sample was collected from McCoys Creek and analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and inorganic compounds (metals). No volatile organic compounds and (or) semivolatile organic compounds were detected at levels above the maximum contaminant level of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Primary Drinking Water Standard, and no inorganic compounds exceeded the maximum contaminant level of the USEPA National Primary Drinking Water Standard or the Georgia In-Stream Water-Quality Standard. Iron was the only inorganic compound detected in the surface-water sample (578 micrograms per liter) that exceeded the USEPA National Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 300 micrograms per liter.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 33.247301699949205° to 33.54940663754663° latitude; -82.42355346679688° to -82.01774597167969° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wladmir B. Guimaraes, W. Fred Falls, Andral W. Caldwell, W. Hagan Ratliff, John B. Wellborn, James Landmeyer. 2011. Assessment of Hyporheic Zone, Flood-Plain, Soil-Gas, Soil, and Surface-Water Contamination at the McCoys Creek Chemical Training Area, Fort Gordon, Georgia, 2009-2010. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20111267

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