Methods to Evaluate Influence of Onsite Septic Wastewater-Treatment Systems on Base Flow in Selected Watersheds in Gwinnett County, Georgia, October 2007

Landers, Mark N.; Ankcorn, Paul D.

doi:10.3133/sir20085220

Cited by 12 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study area is in Gwinnett County, northeast of Atlanta, GA and was previously described in Sowah et al (2014) and Landers and Ankcorn (2008). It has a mean annual rainfall of about 1245 mm.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolating the impact of septic systems on fecal pollution in streams of suburban watersheds in Georgia, United States

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of multiple sources of fecal pollution at the watershed level presents challenges to efforts aimed at identifying the influence of septic systems. In this study multiple approaches including targeted sampling and monitoring of host-specific Bacteroidales markers were used to identify the impact of septic systems on microbial water quality. Twenty four watersheds with septic density ranging from 8 to 373 septic units/km were monitored for water quality under baseflow conditions over a 3-year period. The levels of the human-associated HF183 marker, as well as total and ruminant Bacteroidales, were quantified using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Human-associated Bacteroidales yield was significantly higher in high density watersheds compared to low density areas and was negatively correlated (r = -0.64) with the average distance of septic systems to streams in the spring season. The human marker was also positively correlated with the total Bacteroidales marker, suggesting that the human source input was a significant contributor to total fecal pollution in the study area. Multivariable regression analysis indicates that septic systems, along with forest cover, impervious area and specific conductance could explain up to 74% of the variation in human fecal pollution in the spring season. The results suggest septic system impact through contributions to groundwater recharge during baseflow or failing septic system input, especially in areas with >87 septic units/km. This study supports the use of microbial source tracking approaches along with traditional fecal indicator bacteria monitoring and land use characterization in a tiered approach to isolate the influence of septic systems on water quality in mixed-use watersheds.

show abstract

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolating the impact of septic systems on fecal pollution in streams of suburban watersheds in Georgia, United States

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier studies (Heisig, 2000;Burns and others, 2005;Landers and Ankcorn, 2008) have demonstrated that an increased density of septic systems within unsewered communities can result in hydrologic and chemical alteration to downstream receiving waters. The potential contribution of nitrate from septic systems to the Chesapeake Bay itself, however, has generally not been well understood.…”

Section: Characterization Of Nitrogen Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013

Hyer¹,

Denver²,

Langland³

et al. 2016

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. AcknowledgmentsFunding for this study was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area as part of the Priority Ecosystem Science (PES) Program. Sincere appreciation is extended to the many landowners in all four study watersheds who provided us with access to many of the study sites. Cooperation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, as well as the Soil and Water Conservation Service, was instrumental for better understanding each basin and for gaining access to study sites. Additional contributions of data and information were made by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Appreciation is extended to the Stormwater Planning Division of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services for supporting elements of water-quality monitoring in Difficult Run that were incorporated into this report and for providing data on the implementation of best management practices throughout Difficult Run.We are indebted to the many USGS field technicians and hydrologists who have contributed to the collection of field samples and other technical content throughout the report. Technical reviews by Doug Burns of the USGS New York Water Science Center and Angie Crain of the USGS Indiana-Kentucky Water Science Center strengthened this report and are sincerely appreciated. AbstractDespite widespread and ongoing implementation of conservation practices throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, water quality continues to be degraded by excess sediment and nutrient inputs. While the Chesapeake Bay Program has developed and maintains a large-scale and long-term monitoring network to detect improvements in water quality throughout the watershed, fewer resources have been allocated for monitoring smaller watersheds, even though water-quality improvements that may result from the implementation of conservation practices are likely to be first detected at smaller watershed scales.In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to initiate water-quality monitoring in four selected small watersheds that were targeted for increased implementation of con...

show abstract

“…The towns surrounding Lake Panasoffkee do not offer centralized wastewater disposal, thus, it is assumed that all houses in the area utilize an OWTS for residential waste. Most OWTS in the Lake Panasoffkee watershed consist of a septic tank in which solid wastes are trapped, and an absorption field where discharged fluids infiltrate the surrounding soil (Landers and Ankcorn, 2008). It also was assumed that each parcel of land had one house, and, thus, one OWTS located within its boundaries.…”

Section: Onsite Septic Wastewater-treatment Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrology, water budget, and water chemistry of Lake Panasoffkee, west-central Florida

McBride¹,

Bellino²,

Swancar³

2011

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprodTo order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation:McBride, W.S., Bellino, J.C., and Swancar, Amy, 2011, Hydrology, water budget, and water chemistry of Lake Panasoffkee, west- Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (µS/cm at 25 °C). AbstractA study of Lake Panasoffkee and the surrounding watershed was conducted between October 2005 and September 2009 to gain a better understanding of how this large lake fits within the regional hydrogeologic setting of west-central Florida. Lake Panasoffkee is part of the headwaters of the Withlacoochee River and has a major influence on the hydrology and ecology of that basin. The study defined the interaction between surface water and groundwater, and the magnitude of lake evaporation and groundwater inflow to the lake and how these relate to the Lake Panasoffkee water budget. Geochemical and isotopic analyses were used with water-budget results to describe water sources for the lake. Lake Panasoffkee, the underlying surficial aquifer, and the Floridan aquifer system are hydraulically connected. An area of focused groundwater-discharge potential, where groundwater levels are higher than surface-water levels, is present beneath Lake Panasoffkee and extends several miles northwest and southeast of the lake. Although the size and intensity of the discharge area varied with the seasons and with hydrologic conditions, discharging conditions remained constant throughout the study period.The sandy uplands farther northeast and southeast of Lake Panasoffkee showed the greatest potential for surfacewater to groundwater recharge within the study area. The Lake Panasoffkee watershed lacks a well-developed surface-water drainage system because rainfall rapidly infiltrates the sandy soils in the uplands and recharges the surficial aquifer. The intermediate confining unit is discontinuous in the study area, but even in areas where the confining unit is present, there is a well-developed internal drainage system that compromises the integrity of the unit. The internal drainage system consists of an interconnected network of karst features that includes sinkholes, fissures, and conduits. The discontinuous intermediate confining unit and internal drainage features allow the surficial aquifer to rapidly ...

show abstract

Methods to Evaluate Influence of Onsite Septic Wastewater-Treatment Systems on Base Flow in Selected Watersheds in Gwinnett County, Georgia, October 2007

Abstract: Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (µS/cm at 25 °C).

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Isolating the impact of septic systems on fecal pollution in streams of suburban watersheds in Georgia, United States

Isolating the impact of septic systems on fecal pollution in streams of suburban watersheds in Georgia, United States

Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013

Hydrology, water budget, and water chemistry of Lake Panasoffkee, west-central Florida

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About