Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Publication”

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 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources

Organic compounds in White River water used for public supply near Indianapolis, Indiana, 2002-05

The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) characterized the occurrence of 277 organic compounds in source water (stream water collected before treatment) and finished water (treated water before distribution) from the White River North treatment plant, one of several community water systems that use the White River as its primary water supply (fig. 1). Samples were collected at least monthly during 2002-05 and included 30 source- and 13 finished-water samples. The samples were analyzed for pesticides and selected pesticide degradates (or 'breakdown products'), solvents, gasoline hydrocarbons, disinfection by-products, personal-care and domestic-use products, and other organic compounds. Community water systems are required to monitor for compounds regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Most of the compounds tested in this study are not regulated under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) federal drinking-water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007a). The White River study is part of the ongoing Source Water-Quality Assessment (SWQA) investigation of community water systems that withdraw from rivers across the United States. More detailed information and references on the sampling-design methodology, specific compounds monitored, and the national study are described by Carter and others (2007).

Fact Sheet↗

Organic compounds assessed in Chattahoochee River water used for public supply near Atlanta, Georgia, 2004-05

An investigation by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program characterized the occurrence of 266 organic compounds in source water and finished water from the Chattahoochee River, which is the main water-supply source for the Atlanta metropolitan area. Source water is stream water collected at a surface-water intake prior to water treatment, and finished water is water that has passed through treatment processes prior to distribution. Samples were collected approximately monthly during 2004-05 and included 15 paired source-water and finished-water samples. Samples were collected during winter-spring high flow and summer-fall low flow, but storm events were not targeted during this Source Water-Quality Assessment (SWQA) study. Samples were analyzed for pesticides and degradates, gasoline hydrocarbons, solvents, disinfection by-products, personal care and domestic-use products, and other organic compounds. Community water systems are required to monitor regulated organic compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998); however, most compounds included in this study are not regulated by Federal drinking-water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007a). The Chattahoochee River study is part of an ongoing NAWQA investigation of community water systems across the United States. Additional details about the national study are given in Carter and others (2007).

Georgia↗

U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP Program—Geologic mapping for the public good

As of 2020, STATEMAP has invested more than $150 million in 48 State geological surveys, matched dollar for dollar, to complete geologic mapping projects crucial to the health and security of State natural resources and residents. For more information about STATEMAP and other geologic mapping efforts supported by the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, visit https://ncgmp.usgs.gov .

Fact Sheet↗

Map showing areas serviced by public water-supply agencies in 1973 greater Pittsburgh region, southwestern Pennsylvania

Urban water planning, development, and management are many sectored, costly efforts, subject to a multitude of controls and demands including those imposed by nature. One primary concern in development is for providing a dependable and safe water supply. In spite of a bountiful natural availability, the process of satisfying consumer needs involves the resolution of a variety of problems, not the least of which are cooperation and coordination among suppliers. One of the fundamental requisites in seeking sound solutions to developmental and environmental problems is inventory documentation. This map is one facet of documentation; the data listing, given on sheet 2, is the companion inventory. These supplement State, regional, and local efforts directed toward both long-range planning and current evaluation programs. Such documentation also assists the assessment of the effect of one water-management subsystem on hydrologic characteristics.

Pennsylvania↗

Public acceptance of management actions and judgments of responsibility for the wolves of the southern Greater Yellowstone Area: Report to Grand Teton National Park

Introduction Wolves of Grand Teton National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Area Gray wolves (Canis lupus) appeared in Grand Teton National Park (GRTE) in October of 1998, two years after being reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park (YNP). Since that time, five packs have been within the GRTE borders - Gros Ventre Pack, Nez Perce Pack, Yellowstone Delta Pack, Teton Pack, and Green River Pack (Table 1). Wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area are increasing and spreading out geographically (USFWS and others, 2004). This dispersion was demonstrated recently by the death of a 2-year-old female wolf from the Swan Lake pack on I-70 in Colorado (June 7, 2004; http://mountain-prairie.USFWS.gov/pressrel /04-43.htm). The organization of wolf packs in the GYA is dynamic and highly structured. In 2003, for example, a wolf from the Teton Pack joined with the Green River Pack, and several young wolves left the Teton Pack and moved south (USFWS and others, 2004). Pack size (averaging five to ten members) is dependent on hunting efficiency, which depends on prey size, type, and density. Each pack defends home ranges of several hundred square miles. The social structure of the pack is based on a breeding pair (an alpha male and female). Other wolves in the pack can be categorized as betas (males and/or females second in rank to the alphas), subordinates, pups, and occasional omegas (outcasts). Because generally only the alpha pair breeds, subordinate wolves of reproductive age must disperse from their packs and form new associations in order to breed. (http://www.nps.gov/grte/wolf/biolo.htm). The reintroduced wolves are classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as "nonessential experimental" under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The recovery criteria for the GYA wolves were met in 2002 for removing the wolves from the Endangered Species List (30 or more breeding pairs). Currently, the USFWS manages wolf populations in the GYA until delisting occurs. After delisting, state Fish and Wildlife Services in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will be responsible for managing wolves. Each state must submit a wolf management plan to the USFWS which then must be approved before management shifts occur. As of this writing, the process of delisting the wolves in the state of Wyoming is ongoing. However, the reclassification of wolves nationwide was completed on April 1, 2003. Wolves outside of YNP changed in status from endangered to threatened. The wolves classified in the experimental nonessential population did not change in status (USFWS and others, 2004). This classification of experimental nonessential population allows for flexibility in management decisions concerning the wolves (Smith and others, 2004). For example, control actions in the GYA included trapping and radio-collaring four wolves; intensive monitoring; increasing riders on grazing allotments; harassing wolves with rubber bullets, cracker shells, and lights; moving livestock to different pastures; and issuing four shoot on-sight permits. When non-lethal control methods were not effective, wolves were killed in an attempt to prevent further livestock depredations (USFWS and others, 2004; Table 1). At the same time that wolf numbers are rising, human population statistics in the GRTE area are also rising. The population of Teton County, Wyoming in 1990 was just over 11,000 people; today that number has increased to approximately 19,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). park visitation for GRTE has been substantial over the last several years with an average visitation of 2.5 million visitors (NPS, 2004a). Furthermore, land ownership surrounding GRTE and the establishment of grazing rights within park boundaries are problem areas for wolf-human interactions due to livestock depredation. With increasing numbers of visitors, residents, and livestock it is reasonable to assume that conflicts are going to increase also. In 1950, GRTE was expanded to in

Open-File Report↗