Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “One Health Cases”

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.

96 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS1998

Water-quality assessment of the Central Arizona Basins, Arizona and northern Mexico – Environmental setting and overview of water quality

The Central Arizona Basins study area in central and southern Arizona and northern Mexico is one of 60 study units that are part of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment program. The purpose of this report is to describe the physical, chemical, and environmental characteristics that may affect water quality in the Central Arizona Basins study area and present an overview of water quality. Covering 34,700 square miles, the study area is characterized by generally north to northwestward-trending mountain ranges separated by broad, gently sloping alluvial valleys. Most of the perennial rivers and streams are in the northern part of the study area. Rivers and streams in the south are predominantly intermittent or ephemeral and flow in response to precipitation such as summer thunderstorms. Effluent-dependent streams do provide perennial flow in some reaches. The major aquifers in the study area are in the basin-fill deposits that may be as much as 12,000 feet thick. The 1990 population in the study area was about 3.45 million, and about 61 percent of the total was in Maricopa County (Phoenix and surrounding cities). Extensive population growth over the past decade has resulted in a twofold increase in urban land areas and increased municipal water use; however, agriculture remains the major water use. Seventy-three percent of all water with drawn in the study area during 1990 was used for agricultural purposes. The largest rivers in the study area-the Gila, Salt, and Verde-are perennial near their headwaters but become intermittent downstream because of impoundments and artificial diversions. As a result, the Central Arizona Basins study area is unique compared to less arid basins because the mean surface-water outflow is only 528 cubic feet per second from a total drainage area of 49,650 square miles. Peak flows in the northern part of the study area are the result of snowmelt runoff; whereas, summer thunderstorms account for the peak flows in the southern part. Ground water is the primary water supply in most of Arizona and the only source of drinking water used by communities in the southern half of the study area. Years of overpumping have caused water tables in basin fill to drop below once-perennial streams leaving streambeds dry, water too deep to pump economically, pumping of poorer quality water with depth, and earth fissures resulting from subsidence after dewatering of sediments. Natural processes-such as leaching of trace elements and major ions from geologic formations-and human activities-such as mining, agriculture, and urban development-have major effects on the quality of surface-water and ground-water resources in the Central Arizona Basins study area. Surface-water quality standards in Arizona are based on the designated use of the water such as full or partial body contact, fish consumption, aquatic and wildlife uses, and agriculture. Maintaining the biological integrity (health) of surface waters in Arizona is an important part of ensuring that these waters are suitable for designated uses. Important water-quality issues for surface water that are somewhat unique to Arizona include: (1) streamflows and riparian environments sustained by effluent from municipal wastewater-treatment plants that contains high concentrations of nutrients, potentially toxic trace elements and organic compounds, and fecal bacteria; (2) industrial, mining, agricultural, and municipal sources of contamination from Mexico; and (3) unpredictable high flows from major summer thunder storms causing stream-channel changes; high suspended-sediment concentrations and loads; sewage overflows; and breaching, erosion, and washout of landfills and mining operations. The quality of water in aquifers that are protected for drinking- water use is subject to standards that are in most cases equal to or more stringent than the primary drinking-water regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The general che

Arizona↗
USGS2020

Groundwater quality in relation to drinking water health standards and geochemical characteristics for 54 domestic wells in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, 2017

Despite the reliance on groundwater by approximately 2.4 million rural Pennsylvania residents, publicly available data to characterize the quality of private well water are limited. As part of a regional effort to characterize groundwater in rural areas of Pennsylvania, samples from 54 domestic wells in Clinton County were collected and analyzed in 2017. The samples were evaluated for a wide range of constituents and compared to drinking-water health standards and geochemical characteristics. The sampled wells were completed to depths ranging from 46 to 500 feet in bedrock that was of predominantly sandstone, shale, or carbonate lithology. Results of this study show that the sampled groundwater quality in Clinton County generally met most drinking-water standards that apply to public water supplies. However, a percentage of samples exceeded drinking-water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for total coliform bacteria (57.4 percent), Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) (25.9 percent), nitrate (1.9 percent), and arsenic (1.9 percent); and secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) for pH (31.5 percent), manganese (29.6 percent), iron (13 percent), total dissolved solids (7.4 percent), aluminum (1.9 percent), and chloride (1.9 percent). Sodium concentrations exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water advisory recommendation in 16.7 percent of the samples. Radon-222 activities exceeded the proposed drinking-water standard of 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in 59.3 percent of the samples. The only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected were acetone and methyl ethyl ketone in two separate samples; neither constituent exceeded drinking-water standards. Higher median nitrate concentrations were found in the carbonate (3.26 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) versus shale (less than 0.04 mg/L) and sandstone (0.27 mg/L) aquifer subsets. Most of the elevated nitrate concentrations were associated with E. coli detections in the carbonate aquifers, where transmissive bedrock can facilitate groundwater contamination by human activities at the land surface. The median pH of groundwater from the sandstone aquifers (6.53) was less than those for the shale aquifers (7.31) and carbonate aquifers (7.43). Generally, the lower pH samples had greater potential for elevated concentrations of dissolved metals, including beryllium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc, whereas the higher pH samples had greater potential for elevated concentrations of total dissolved solids, sodium, fluoride, boron, and uranium. Near-neutral samples (pH 6.5 to 7.5) had greater hardness and alkalinity concentrations than other samples with pH outside this range. Many samples from the shale or sandstone aquifers, particularly those with pH less than 6.5, were identified as having serious potential corrosivity based on the combination of the calcite saturation index and the chloride to sulfate mass ratio; however, none of the samples from the carbonate aquifers was identified as seriously corrosive. Groundwater from 3.7 percent of the wells had concentrations of methane greater than the Pennsylvania action level of 7 mg/L, and 48 of the 54 wells (88.9 percent) had detectable concentrations of methane greater than the 0.0002 mg/L detection limit. Greater methane concentrations were found more frequently in groundwater sampled from the shale aquifers than the carbonate or sandstone aquifers in the study area. Most of the samples containing elevated methane (greater than 0.2 mg/L) were located outside the area of the Appalachian Plateaus. The elevated concentrations of methane generally were associated with suboxic groundwater (dissolved oxygen less than 0.5 mg/L) that had near-neutral to alkaline pH and were correlated with concentrations of iron, manganese, ammonia, sodium, lithium, barium, fluoride, and boron. The stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic compositions of methane in two of four samples analyzed for isotopes were consistent with compositions reported for mud-gas logging samples from gas-bearing geologic units (thermogenic gas) in the Appalachian Plateaus region, whereas two others were consistent with methane of microbial origin or a mixture of microbial and thermogenic gas. Forty-two percent of samples had chloride concentrations greater than 20 mg/L with variable bromide concentrations. Corresponding chloride/bromide ratios are consistent with low-bromide sources such as road-deicing salt and septic effluent or animal waste, or, in a few cases, high-bromide brine. Brines characterized by relatively high bromide are naturally present in deeper parts of the regional groundwater system and, in some cases, may be mobilized by gas drilling. The chloride, bromide, and other constituents in road-deicing salt or brine solutions tend to be diluted by mixing with fresh groundwater in shallow aquifers used for water supply. One of the four groundwater samples with methane concentrations greater than 4 mg/L had chloride and bromide concentrations and a chloride/bromide ratio that indicates mixing with a salinity source such as road-deicing salt, whereas the chloride and bromide concentrations and ratios for the other three high-methane samples indicate mixing with a small amount of brine (0.03 percent or less). In two other eastern Pennsylvania county studies where gas drilling is absent, groundwater with comparable chloride/bromide ratios, bromide, and chloride concentrations plus other element associations have been reported. Additional sampling and analysis, such as isotopic analysis of the dissolved gas, fracture analysis, and more detailed evaluation of surrounding land uses, may be warranted to better understand the origin of the methane and brine constituents in groundwater at specific locations.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2010

The potential influence of changing climate on the persistence of salmonids of the inland west

The Earth's climate warmed steadily during the 20th century, and mean annual air temperatures are estimated to have increased by 0.6°C (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Although many cycles of warming and cooling have occurred in the past, the most recent warming period is unique in its rate and magnitude of change (Siegenthaler and others, 2005) and in its association with anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007). The climate in the western United States warmed in concert with the global trend but at an accelerated rate (+0.8°C during the 20th century; Saunders and others, 2008). The region could also prove especially sensitive to future changes because the relatively small human population is growing rapidly, as are demands on limited water supplies. Regional hydrological patterns are dominated by seasonal snow accumulation at upper elevations. Most of the region is relatively dry, and both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are strongly constrained b y water availability (Barnett and others, 2008; Brown and others, 2008). Stream environments are dynamic and climatically extreme, and salmonid fishes are the dominant elements of the native biodiversity (McPhail and Lindsey, 1986; Waples and others, 2008). Salmonids have broad economic and ecologic importance, but a century of intensive water resource development, nonnative fish stocking, and land use has significantly reduced many populations and several taxa are now protected under the Endangered Species Act (Thurow and others, 1997; Trotter, 2008). Because salmonids require relatively pristine, cold water environments and are often isolated in headwater habitats, members of this group may be especially vulnerable to the effects of a warming climate (Keleher and Rahel, 1996; Rieman and others, 2007; Williams and others, 2009). Warming during the 20th century drove a series of environmental trends that have profound implications for many aspects of salmonid habitat, including disturbance regimes such as wildfire, and unfavorable changes to thermal and hydrologic properties of aquatic systems. Warmer air temperatures have been associated with decreased winter snow accumulations, have accelerated snowmelt, and have advanced the timing of peak runoff by several days to weeks across most of western North America (Stewart and others, 2005; Barnett and others, 2008). Less snow and earlier runoff decrease aquifer recharge, make less water available for groundwater inputs to streams, and are contributing to widespread decreases in summer low flows (Stewart and others, 2005; Rood and others, 2008; Luce and Holden 2009). Interannual variability in stream flow is increasing, as is the persistence of multi-year extreme conditions (McCabe and others, 2004; Pagano and Garen 2005). In many areas of western North America, flood risks have increased in association with warmer temperatures during the 20th century (Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 2005). Streams where midwinter temperatures are near freezing have proven especially sensitive to increased flooding because of associated transitional hydrological patterns (mixtures of rainfall and snowmelt) and propensity for occasional rain-on-snow events to rapidly melt winter snowpack and generate large floods (Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 2005). Stream temperatures in many areas are increasing (Peterson and Kitchell, 2001; Morrison and others, 2002; Bartholow, 2005; Kaushal and others, 2010), due to both air temperature increases and reduced summer flows that make streams more sensitive to warmer air temperatures (Isaak and others, 2010). In recent decades, wildfires have become more common across much of the western United States during periods of more frequent droughts (Westerling and others, 2006; Hoerling and Eischeid, 2007), and local stream temperature can increase in postfire environments (Gresswell, 1999; Dunham and others, 2007). Fire-related temperature increase within streams is commonly a transient phenomenon, lasting only until riparian vegetation has recovered (Gresswell, 1999); however, ongoing climate change could preclude recovery to higher stature, prefire vegetation types in some areas (McKenzie and others, 2004; van Mantgem and Stephenson, 2007), resulting in a loss of critical riparian shading. Additionally, when wildfires occur in steep mountain topographies, the vegetation that stabilize s soils on hillslopes is often killed and landslides become more prevalent (Gresswell, 1999). Landslides int o stream channels form debris flows composed of sediment slurries and dead trees that can scour channels to bedrock and further exacerbate stream heating, delay recovery of riparian areas, or extirpate fish populations (Gresswell, 1999; May and Gresswell, 2003; Dunham and others, 2007). Changes in stream environments will shift habitat distributions, sometimes unpredictably, in both time and space for many salmonid fishes. Water temperature fundamentally influences aquatic ecosystem health because distribution, reproduction, fitness, and survival of ectothermic organisms are inextricably linked to the thermal regime of the environment. Historically, research has focused on defining lethal thermal limits of salmonids (Eaton and others, 1995; Selong and others, 2001; Todd and others, 2008); however, water temperature is known to be important in biological processes at a variety of spatial scales and levels of biological organization (Rahel and Olden, 2008; McCullough and others, 2009). For instance, trout are affected directly by water temperature through feeding, metabolism, and growth rates, and indirectly by factors such as prey availability and species interactions (Wehrly and others, 2007; Rahel and Olden, 2008). Where cold water temperatures currently limit habitat suitability and distributions of some species (for example, at the highest and most northerly distributional extents; Nakano and others, 1996; Coleman and Fausch, 2007), a warming climate may gradually increase the quality and extent of suitable habitat. Over time, previously constrained populations are expected to expand into these new habitats and increase in number. Some evidence suggests this may already be happening in Alaska, where streams in recently deglaciated areas are being colonized by emigrants from nearby salmon and char populations (Milner and others, 2000). Unfortunately, many of the sensitive salmonid species that are often the focus of western managers are unlikely to benefit from future water temperature increases. Warmer stream temperatures will facilitate invasion by nonnative species that are broadly established in downstream areas into upstream areas where they will compete with native species (Rieman and others, 2006; Rahel and Olden, 2008; Fausch and others, 2009). In other cases, warmer stream temperatures will render thermally suitable habitats unsuitable in downstream areas and effect net losses of habitat because upstream distributions are often constrained by streams that are too small or steep (Hari and others, 2006; Isaak and others, 2010). Both scenarios are realistic for fish species like bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus ) (Rieman and others, 2006; Rieman and others, 2007), the various subspecies of cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii ) (Williams and others, 2009), Gila trout ( Oncorhynchus gilae gilae ) (Kennedy and others, 2008), and Apache trout ( Oncorhynchus gilae apache ) (Rinne and Minckley, 1985; Carmichael and others, 1993). As native species are increasingly confined to smaller and more isolated habitats by a gradually warming climate, the effects of wildfires (whether related to lethal changes in water quality during a fire, channel debris flows, or chronic postfire warming ) could have greater proportional effects on remaining habitats (for example, Brown and others, 2001; Rieman and others, 2007). If these changes were accompanied by additional hydrologic alterations associated with changes to the magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change of discharge patterns (Jager and others, 1999; Henderson and others, 2000), populations may begin to lose some of their historic resilience and become ever more susceptible to local extirpations. As dramatic and extensive as climatic and environmental trends are for salmonid habitats, global climate models (GCMs) project that many of these trends will continue and even accelerate until at least the middle of the 21st century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Current projections suggest mean annual air temperatures will increase by an additional 1–3°C, and early indications are that climate trajectory is at the higher end of this range (Pittock, 2006; Raupach and others, 2007). Although predicted changes vary considerably, even the most conservative estimates suggest a warming rate that will be twice that observed during the 20th century. Projections for the midcentury are most certainly due to the effects of greenhouse gases already emitted or predicted in the short term, uncertainties of the effects of longer-term greenhouse gas emissions, short-term climate cycles, and process errors associated with climate models (Cox and Stephenson, 2007). Projections of changes in total precipitation are less certain than those for air temperatures, but most GCMs project relatively small changes in the Northwest, with the exception of slightly drier summer periods (Mote and others, 2008; Karl and others, 2009). In the Southwest, however, significant decreases (such as 15–30 percent ) are projected during most periods of the year, and this area is one of the few for which Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) precipitation projections have a high level of certainty (Hoerling and Eischeid, 2007; Karl and others, 2009). Clearly, managers of native salmonids in the wester n United States should consider adjusting management strategies to accommodate a warmer and possibly drier future (Williams and others, 2009). Tools are needed to forecast where important changes may occur and how conservation efforts should be prioritized. In this Open-File Report, we document our initial efforts in this regard for 10 species and subspecies of inland trout and Montana Arctic grayling ( Thymallus arcticus ) across the western United States.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗
USGS2024

Perspectives on equitable co-production workshop report

The co-production of knowledge is increasingly recognized as an approach to conducting research intended to achieve a societal impact. In this study, we used a broad definition of co-production, defining it as “a process that brings together diverse groups to iteratively create new knowledge and practices (1).” However, co-production has been defined and conceptualized in a variety of ways (2,3), across multiple domains, including public administration, conservation, health, education, and climate change. Theoretical definitions have been introduced by scholars like Jasanoff (4) and Ostrom (5), but definitions can also be grounded in practice (6). For example, unique definitions of co-production have been advanced for work with Arctic Indigenous Peoples (7), in the context of resource management (8), and for a specific program (9). Other similar processes of engagement, such as community-based participatory research (10), action research (11), civic science (12), community science (13), and post-normal science (14) may have overlap with the concept of co-production and have been used to describe similar processes of collaboration. These distinctions and varying definitions have been discussed extensively elsewhere (see Mach et al. 2020, Wyborn et al. 2019). In the context of co-production, power plays a crucial role in shaping interactions and outcomes. Some scholars and practitioners explicitly consider power dynamics as a central element in their definitions of co-production, recognizing how power imbalances can affect participation, decision-making, and the distribution of benefits. Others, however, might not emphasize power as prominently, focusing more on the collaborative aspects without explicitly addressing the underlying power structures. This leads to divergent objectives and priorities among projects claiming to be co-produced (2,3, 6). Chambers and colleagues (2) discussed how co-production projects in the context of sustainability usually emphasize one or more of six different goals, including: researching solutions, empowering voices, brokering power, reframing power, navigating differences, and reframing agency. Because power dynamics are inherent in co-production (15), equity dimensions should be considered in these definitions and conceptualizations. Yet, in the context of government or academically led climate change research and programs, equity is a relatively new focus, even among programs that have been engaging a co-production approach for decades (9). Alternatively, in some recent work the concept of equity in co-production is explicit, but it has only been considered in a limited context (7). Here, we present a discussion about co-production that is informed by research, practice, and community perspectives across partnerships from a range of regions and topics. We are specifically interested in how different actors in these projects think about equity and work towards more equitable approaches in the context of their co-production work. This understanding is needed, as the federal government has increasingly focused on co-production approaches in the design of their programs and funding calls, and most recently the Biden administration has called on federal agencies to more intentionally center equity for underserved groups of people in their work (16). Furthermore, with the Biden administration’s focus on environmental and climate justice, the opportunity for researchers and their societal partners to engage in co-production is expanding. Numerous programs within federal agencies have embraced a co-production approach, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Adaptation Partnerships (CAP; formerly called the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments or RISA program) (9,17), Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs)(18), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Hubs. However, the actual implementation of co-production processes varies significantly (1,19), with multiple implications for the design of equitable partnerships. Researchers, their partners, and funders have frequently cited many tensions and challenges in the successful implementation of co-production, including higher resource demands and few systemic structures for support (20). Practically implementing co-production, especially with people who have been underrepresented in or historically excluded from research activities, must consider fairness and the accessibility of co-production processes. While co-production is often cited as important for environmental governance, issues like power and equity are infrequently addressed (15). To explore this topic, we identified and studied three projects that centered on equity in co-production from three federal climate programs (CASC, CAP, USDA Climate Hubs) in three different regions of the U.S. (Alaska, Northeast, Southeast). We aimed to identify consensus or divergence in perspectives related to equitable co-production processes to elevate effective practices and link co-production research and practice. Findings from interviews and a survey (explained further in Akerlof et al., 2023) informed a twoday hybrid workshop involving participants from the three case studies, as well as individuals representing research, governmental, non-governmental, and community organizations across the United States. Participants also included scholars of co-production, program coordinators, and people who participated in co-production projects on behalf of their communities. Several boundary spanners, those practitioners who work at the intersection of the production and use of science (21,22), also attended the workshop. The goals of the workshop were to discuss and build on what was learned from the three case studies, discuss the three distinct perspectives on equitable co-production that emerged from the pre-workshop research, and draft a framework for equitable co-production processes. During the workshop, participants considered the three perspectives on equitable co-production, defining equitable co-production for each and discussing the practical implications of each, including barriers and priorities for overcoming them. We aimed to address the question: How can federal climate programs support equitable co-production processes?

Report↗
USGS2017

Geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines are located in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri, where barite and lead ore are present together in surficial and near-surface deposits. Lead mining in the area began in the early 1700’s and extended into the early 1900’s. Hand mining of lead in the residuum resulted in widespread pits (also called shafts or diggings), and there was some underground mining of lead in bedrock. By the 1860’s barite was recovered from the residuum by hand mining, also resulting in widespread diggings, but generally not underground mines in bedrock. Mechanized open-pit mining of the residuum for barite began in the 1920’s. Barite production slowed by the 1980’s, and there has not been any barite mining since 1998. Mechanized barite mining resulted in large mined areas and tailings ponds containing waste from barite mills. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that lead is present in surface soils in Washington and Jefferson Counties at concentrations exceeding health-based screening levels. Also, elevated concentrations of barium, arsenic, and cadmium have been identified in surface soils, and lead concentrations exceeding the Federal drinking-water standard of 15 micrograms per liter have been identified in private drinking-water wells. Potential sources of these contaminants are wastes associated with barite mining, wastes associated with lead mining, or unmined natural deposits of barium, lead, and other metals. As a first step in helping EPA determine the source of soil and groundwater contamination, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the EPA, investigated the geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines. Ore minerals are barite (barium sulfate), galena (lead sulfide), cerussite (lead carbonate), anglesite (lead sulfate), sphalerite (zinc sulfide), smithsonite (zinc carbonate), and chalcopyrite (copper-iron sulfide). The Cambrian Potosi Dolomite is the most important formation for the ore deposits, followed by the Eminence Dolomite. Because galena, sphalerite, and barite are less soluble than dolomite, chemical weathering of the ore-bearing dolomite bedrock resulted in the concentration of ore minerals in the residuum. Most of the barite and lead mining was in the residuum, which averages 10 to 15 feet thick. Lead mining by French explorers may have begun in 1719 along Old Mines Creek at Cabanage de Renaudiere, which was followed shortly by the discovery of lead and the development of lead mines at Mine Renault (also called Forche a Renault Mine), Old Mines, and at other places along the Big River, Mineral Fork, and Forche a Renault Creek. Lead mining began sometime between 1775 and 1780 at Mine a Breton, the name of which was later changed to Potosi. Other mining areas were developed in the early part of the 19th century, including Fourche a Courtois (Palmer Mines), the French Diggings, and the Richwoods Mines. Zinc became a valuable resource after the Civil War, and the Valles Mines was an important supplier of zinc as well as lead, with at least some production up until the 1920’s. Lead mining declined in the early part of the 20th century as mining in the Old Lead Belt, Mine La Motte, and the Tri-State District expanded. The earliest lead mines were diggings in the residuum and were round holes (shafts) about 4 feet in diameter dug with pick and shovel about 15–20 feet deep, with drifts dug a short distance laterally from the bottom of the shafts. This mining process was repeated a short distance away until a large area was covered with pits. Some mining in bedrock began by about 1800, with shafts as deep as 170 feet and as much as several hundred feet of lateral drifts. Smelting of the lead ore to elemental lead was first done using a log furnace, which was inefficient; estimates have been made that only about 50 percent of the lead was recovered, and the remainder was lost to the ashes (slags) and to volatilization. Starting in 1798, ash furnaces were used to smelt the ashes from the log furnaces. These two furnaces were worked in tandem for many years but were gradually replaced by other furnaces, including the Scotch hearth. Estimates of lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent have been made for the Scotch hearth. By the mid-1870’s the air furnace was being used, also with estimated lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent. Zinc furnaces were built when zinc became a valuable commodity, but much of the zinc ore was shipped out of the area, either to a smelter in St. Louis, Missouri, or to other smelters. The total lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated at 180,000 tons of lead and 60,000 tons of zinc. An estimated 97,000 tons of lead and an estimated 120,000 tons of zinc were lost during smelting. The estimated losses do not include losses at the mine site during mining and preparation for smelting, such as the loss of fine-grained galena during hand cleaning or the discarding of zinc ore before its value was known, for which no estimates are available. Hand mining for barite in the residuum was active by at least the 1860’s and peaked from 1905 to the 1930’s when several thousand people were engaged in barite mining. Hand mining (diggings) and cleaning of the ore was done in much the same way as earlier lead mining, with the additional use of a rattle box to further clean the barite. Mechanized open-pit mining of old barite diggings began in 1924 to recover barite left behind by hand mining, and washing plants were used to clean the clay from the barite. Hand mining, however, continued to thrive, and washer plants began to close temporarily in 1931; nearly all of the barite produced before 1937 was by hand mining. By the 1940’s, however, all barite mining was mechanized. Mechanized mining used shovels powered by steam, gasoline, or electricity (and by the 1950’s draglines and front-end loaders) to mine the residuum. The ore was loaded onto rail cars (and by the 1940’s, trucks) for shipment to washer plants. Clay was removed from the barite using a log washer, and a jig was used to concentrate the barite. Overflow from the log washers was waste and went to a mud (tailings) pond. The coarse jig tailings went to tailings piles or were used as railroad ballast and, later, to create roads within the mine pit. Some barite was ground, depending on its final use, and some ground barite was bleached using a hot solution of sulfuric acid to remove impurities such as iron minerals and lead sulfide (galena). An earlier bleaching process used lead-lined tanks. Large quantities of water were required for milling the barite; some was recirculated water and the remainder came from dammed streams or was pumped from wells. Tailings and wastewater were impounded behind dikes that were built across small valleys and were increased in height as necessary using washer waste and any overburden that had been stripped. In some cases, dikes were built across valleys that had already been mined for barite. The total production of barite from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated to have been about 13.1 million tons. Most of the barite production was from Washington County. Hand mining and processing of barite was inefficient. Estimates of barite recovery range from less than one-fourth to about one-half because pillars between the shafts in the residuum needed to be left unmined for stability. With mechanized mining, large amounts of barite were lost during the milling process. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of the barite was lost and that about two-thirds of the lost barite was fine-grained and was discharged to the tailings ponds. Some galena was lost to the tailings ponds. A 1972 inventory of tailings ponds by the Missouri Geological Survey identified 67 ponds in the Southeast Missouri Barite District (there are more than this currently documented). Results from samples from four ponds that were drilled were used to estimate that the 67 ponds contained almost 39 million tons (or cubic yards) of tailings averaging about 5 percent barite, for a potential reserve of 1.935 million tons of barite. It is not known how much lead was removed during barite mining, either by hand or mechanized mining and processing, how much lead was recovered, or how much lead went as fines to the tailing ponds or as coarse material to mine roads or was otherwise lost.

Missouri↗
USGS2016

Effects of aquifer storage and recovery activities on water quality in the Little Arkansas River and Equus Beds Aquifer, south-central Kansas, 2011–14

The Equus Beds aquifer in south-central Kansas is aprimary water source for the city of Wichita. The Equus Beds aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project was developed to help the city of Wichita meet increasing current (2016) and future water demands. The Equus Beds ASR project pumps water out of the Little Arkansas River during above-base flow conditions, treats it using drinking-water quality standards as a guideline, and recharges it into the Equus Beds aquifer for later use. Phase II of the Equus Beds ASR project currently (2016) includes a river intake facility and a surface-water treatment facility with a 30 million gallon per day capacity. Water diverted from the Little Arkansas River is delivered to an adjacent presedimentation basin for solids removal. Subsequently, waste from the surface-water treatment facility and the presedimentation basin is returned to the Little Arkansas River through a residuals return line. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the city of Wichita, developed and implemented a hydrobiological monitoring program as part of the ASR project to characterize and quantify the effects of aquifer storage and recovery activities on the Little Arkansas River and Equus Beds aquifer water quality. Data were collected from 2 surface-water sites (one upstream and one downstream from the residuals return line), 1 residuals return line site, and 2 groundwater well sites (each having a shallow and deep part): the Little Arkansas River upstream from the ASR facility near Sedgwick, Kansas (upstream surface-water site 375350097262800), about 0.03 mile (mi) upstream from the residuals return line site; the Little Arkansas River near Sedgwick, Kans. (downstream surface-water site 07144100), about 1.68 mi downstream from the residuals return line site; discharge from the Little Arkansas River ASR facility near Sedgwick, Kansas (residuals return line site 375348097262800); 25S 01 W 07BCCC01 SMW–S11 near CW36 (MW–7 shallow groundwater well site 375327097285401); 25S01 W 07BCCC02 DMW–S10 near CW36 (MW–7 deep groundwater well site 375327097285402); 25S 01W 07BCCA01 SMW–S13 near CW36 (MW–8 shallow groundwater well site 375332097284801); and 25S 01W 07BCCA02 DMW–S14 near CW36 (MW–8 deep groundwater well site 375332097284802). The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the city of Wichita, assessed the effects of the ASR Phase II facility residuals return line discharges on stream quality of the Little Arkansas River by measuring continuous physicochemical properties and collecting discrete water-quality and sediment samples for about 2 years pre- (January 2011 through April 2013) and post-ASR (May 2013 through December 2014) Phase II facility operation upstream and downstream from the ASR Phase II facility. Additionally, habitat variables were quantified and macroinvertebrate and fish communities were sampled upstream and downstream from the ASR Phase II facility during the study period. To assess the effects of aquifer recharge on Equus Beds groundwater quality, continuous physicochemical properties were measured and discrete water-quality samples were collected before and during the onset of Phase II aquifer recharge in two (shallow and deep) groundwater wells. Little Arkansas River streamflow was about 10 times larger after the facility began operating because of greater rainfall. Residuals return line release volumes were a very minimal proportion (0.06 percent) of downstream streamflow volume during the months the ASR facility was operating. Upstream and downstream continuously measured water temperature and dissolved oxygen median differences were smaller post-ASR than pre-ASR. Turbidity generally was smaller at the downstream site throughout the study period and decreased at both sites after the ASR Phase II facility began discharging despite a median residuals return line turbidity that was about an order of magnitude larger than the median turbidity at the downstream site. Upstream and downstream continuously measured turbidity median differences were larger post-ASR than pre-ASR. Median post-ASR continuously measured nitrite plus nitrate and continuously computed total suspended solids and suspended-sediment concentrations were smaller than pre-ASR likely because of higher streamflows and dilution; whereas, median continuously computed dissolved and total organic carbon concentrations were larger likely because of higher streamflows and runoff conditions. None of the discretely measured water-quality constituents (dissolved and suspended solids, primary ions, suspended sediment, nutrients, carbon, trace elements, viral and bacterial indicators, and pesticides) in surface water were significantly different between the upstream and downstream sites after the ASR Phase II facility began discharging; however, pre-ASR calcium, sodium, hardness, manganese, and arsenate concentrations were significantly larger at the upstream site, which indicates that some water-quality conditions at the upstream and downstream sites were more similar post-ASR. Most of the primary constituents that make up dissolved solids decreased at both sites after the ASR Phase II facility began operation. Discretely collected total suspended solids concentrations were similar between the upstream and downstream sites before the facility began operating but were about 27 percent smaller at the downstream site after the facility began operating, despite the total suspended solids concentrations in the residuals return line being 15 times larger than the downstream site. Overall habitat scores were indicative of suboptimal conditions upstream and downstream from the ASR Phase II facility throughout the study period. Substrate fouling and sediment deposition mean scores indicated marginal conditions at the upstream and downstream sites during the study period, demonstrating that sediment deposition was evident pre- and post-ASR and no substantial changes in these habitat characteristics were noted after the ASR Phase II facility began discharging. Macroinvertebrate community composition (evaluated using functional feeding, behavioral, and tolerance metrics) generally was similar between sites during the study period. Fewer macroinvertebrate metrics were significant between the upstream and downstream sites post-ASR (6) than pre-ASR (14), which suggests that macroinvertebate communities were more similar after the ASR facility began discharging. Upstream-downstream comparisons in macroinvertebrate aquatic-life-support metrics had no significant differences for the post-ASR time period and neither site was fully supporting for any of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment aquatic-life-support metrics (Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index; Kansas Biotic Index with tolerances for nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera [EPT] richness; and percentage of EPT species). Overall, using macroinvertebrate aquatic life-support criteria from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, upstream and downstream sites were classified as partially supporting before and after the onset of ASR facility operations. Fish community trophic status and tolerance groups generally were similar among sites during the study period. Fish community Little Arkansas River Basin Index of Biotic Integrity scores at the upstream and downstream sites were indicative of fair-to-good conditions before the facility began operating and decreased to fair conditions after the facility began operating. Groundwater physicochemical changes concurrent with the beginning of recharge operations at the Sedgwick basin were more pronounced in shallow groundwater. No constituent concentrations in the pre-recharge period in comparison to the post-recharge period increased to concentrations exceeding drinking water regulations; however, nitrate decreased significantly from a pre-recharge exceedance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level to a post recharge nonexceedance. Shallow groundwater chemical concentrations or rates of detection increased after artificial recharge began for the ions potassium, chloride, and fluoride; phosphorus and organic carbon species; trace elements barium, manganese, nickel, arsenate, arsenic, and boron; agricultural pesticides atrazine, metolachlor, metribuzin, and simazine; organic disinfection byproducts bromodichloromethane and trichloromethane; and gross beta levels. Additionally, water temperature, and pH were larger after recharge began; and total solids and slime-forming bacteria concentrations and densities were smaller. Total solids, nitrate, and selenium significantly decreased; and potassium, chloride, nickel, arsenic, fluoride, phosphorus and carbon species, and gross beta levels significantly increased in shallow groundwater after artificial recharge. Results of biological activity reaction tests indicated that water quality microbiology was different before and after artificial recharge began; at times, these differences may lead to changes in dominant bacterial populations that, in turn, may lead to formation and expansion in populations that may cause bioplugging and other unwanted effects. Calcite, iron (II) hydroxide, hydroxyapatite, and similar minerals, had shifts in saturation indices that generally were from undersaturation toward equilibrium and, in some cases, toward oversaturation. These shifts toward neutral saturation indices might suggest reduced weathering of the minerals present in the Equus Beds aquifer. Chemical weathering in the shallow parts of the aquifer may be accelerated because of the increased water temperatures and the system is more vulnerable to clogged pores and mineral dissolution as the equilibrium state is affected by recharge and withdrawal. When oversaturation is indicated for iron minerals, plugging of aquifer materials may happen.

Kansas↗