USGS ScienceSearch

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Northwest Science”

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.

291 records · Page 17Linked to original sources

Streams, springs, and volcanic lakes for volcano monitoring

Introduction Volcanic unrest can trigger appreciable change to surface waters such as streams, springs, and volcanic lakes. Magma degassing produces gases and soluble salts that are absorbed into groundwater that feeds streams and lakes. As magma ascends, the amount of heat and degassing will increase, and so will any related geochemical and thermal signal. Subsurface magma movement can cause pressurization that alters hydrostatic head and may induce groundwater discharge. Fluid-pressure changes have been linked to distal volcano-tectonic earthquakes (White and McCausland, 2016; Coulon and others, 2017) and phreatic eruptions (for example, Yamaoka and others, 2016). Clearly, changes in groundwater and surface waters are both indicators of unrest and clues to how and where magma is rising toward the surface. Where possible, it is prudent to incorporate real-time hydrologic data into multiparameter monitoring of restless volcanoes. Hydrologic dynamics can also be tracked by changes in groundwater levels that are commonly measured in shallow boreholes (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume, on boreholes; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024). Although inferred to be common, relatively few volcano-hydrology anomalies are well documented, and many are essentially anecdotal (Newhall and others, 2001), reflecting the fact that high-resolution time series remain rare. Extreme examples include the 2008 eruption of Nevado del Huila, Colombia, where relatively minor phreatomagmatic eruptions were accompanied by expulsion of as much as 300 million cubic meters of groundwater from fissures high on the volcano (Worni and others, 2011), generating large lahars. Substantial decreases in flow rate from springs about 8 kilometers from the summit of Mayon Volcano, Philippines, have been noted before most eruptions in the 20th century (Newhall and others, 2001). Stream monitoring at Redoubt Volcano in 2009 allowed Werner and others (2012) to recognize that groundwater was unable to absorb (or scrub) the high flux of volcanic gas and that a high CO 2 /SO 2 precursor signal had been evident for 5 months prior to the eruption. A key to better interpreting hydrologic anomalies—or even identifying them—is therefore obtaining adequate baseline data. Most hydrologic monitoring at U.S. volcanoes has been accomplished by intermittent sampling surveys with annual or less frequent sampling (for example, https://hotspringchem.wr.usgs.gov/index.php ). More frequent sampling, however, generally is needed to establish reliable baselines. A recent hydrologic and hydrothermal monitoring experiment at 25 sites and 10 of the 12 level 4 (very high threat) volcanoes in the U.S. portion of the Cascade Range demonstrated that there is sufficient temporal variability in hydrothermal fluxes, even during quiescent periods, that one-time measurements will commonly have limited interpretive value (Crankshaw and others, 2018). Thus, surveys are best augmented with data from streamgages (for example, Evans and others, 2004; Bergfeld and others, 2008). Streamflow (water discharge) data allow measured temperature and specific conductance to be converted to heat and solute mass fluxes, which could be insightful parameters for detecting anomalous activity (McCleskey and others, 2012). At the Yellowstone Caldera, long-term monitoring of river solutes has allowed calculation of the chloride flux, a proxy for heat discharge (Hurwitz and others, 2007; McCleskey and others, 2016) from the subsurface magma. This is readily accomplished because data from streamgages are continuously recorded and archived by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) (USGS, 2024). Similar studies on stratovolcanoes or shield volcanoes would be scientifically useful, and yet are logistically challenging, requiring streamgages on numerous radial drainages complemented by either frequent manual sampling or numerous deployments of equipment to measure water temperature and specific conductance as a proxy for water chemistry. Another challenge is that some volcanic areas, especially shield volcanoes, are characterized by near-surface porous rocks and soils, such that surface streams are rare and replaced by distant, dilute large-volume springs with only a trace of any original volcanically sourced water (Manga, 2001; Hurwitz and others, 2021). Volcanic lakes are worthy of special attention for monitoring efforts, as their temperature and composition can provide evidence of increased flux of volatile-rich fluids from below. Quantifying changes in volatile and heat release from magma can be simpler in lakes than for volcanoes with radial drainages and no major lakes. Moreover, volcanic lakes pose a range of hazards themselves, including phreatomagmatic eruptions, debris flows, flank collapse, tsunamis, and toxic gas release (Mastin and Witter, 2000; Delmelle and others, 2015; Manville, 2015; Rouwet and others, 2015)—hazards that have historically been responsible for substantial loss of life at many volcanoes worldwide (Manville, 2015). Catastrophic CO 2 release at Lake Nyos, Cameroon, in 1986 suffocated about 1,750 people and about 3,500 livestock and was probably triggered by a large landslide into the gas-saturated lake (Kling and others, 1987; Evans and others, 1993). Gas-charged springs in Soda Bay within Clear Lake (California) have caused almost a dozen deaths to bathers in the past hundred years (ABC News, 2000). A 2005 example of lake overturn and abundant gas release was documented at Mount Chiginagak in Alaska (Schaefer and others, 2008) but did not result in any human casualties. Although thermally stratified lakes, which promote trapping of exsolved magmatic gas, tend to develop in tropical regions, the phenomenon can also arise where salinity creates meromixis (a condition in which a lake does not mix completely), as occurs in Mono Lake, California (Jellison and Melack, 1993; Jellison and others, 1998). If magma erupts or flows into a lake, the interaction between hot magma and cold water can be explosive (Mastin and others, 2004; Zimanowski and others, 2015) and substantially expand the area affected by the eruption. Another hazard is the breaching of crater rims by landslides triggered by volcanic and (or) seismic activity. Under some circumstances, substantial volumes of water can be displaced, leading to large floods and lahars. Late Holocene lake flooding from Aniakchak Crater in the Alaska Peninsula (Waythomas, 2022) and from Paulina Lake in Newberry Crater, Oregon (Chitwood and Jensen, 2000), caused by the failure of outlet sills, testify to the substantial hazards at lake-filled calderas. Several volcanic systems in the United States host lakes known to receive heat and gas from underlying magma. These lakes vary widely in area, depth, and chemical composition. Lakes are present at level 4 volcanoes, including Crater Lake and Newberry Volcano in Oregon; Yellowstone Caldera in Wyoming; Long Valley Caldera, Clear Lake volcanic field, Medicine Lake, and Salton Buttes in California; and Aniakchak Crater, Mount Katmai, Fisher Caldera, Mount Okmok, and Kaguyak Crater, among others, in Alaska. A water lake was present in Halemaʻumaʻu, the crater of Kīlauea, Hawai‘i (fig. F1), from October 2019 to December 2020. Level 3 volcanoes with lakes include Mono Lake volcanic field (Calif.), Mount Bachelor (Ore.), Ukinrek Maars and Mount Chiginagak (Alaska), and Soda Lake (Nevada). In addition, there are lakes at many levels 1 and 2 volcanoes. In the United States, there are no strongly acidic lakes that receive abundant input of magmatic gas, such as those found at Mount Ruapehu (New Zealand), Ijen and Kelud (Indonesia), and Poás (Costa Rica). Nevertheless, many contain fluids that provide clues to magmatic processes below. Since publication of a previous report on recommended instrumentation for volcano monitoring (Moran and others, 2008), continuous hydrologic monitoring has become increasingly feasible. However, changes in water pressure, temperature, and chemistry remain, in general, poorly studied phenomena at volcanoes (Sparks, 2003; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Recent efforts by the USGS have included the temporary study of Cascade Range volcanoes, which included frequent (15 minute to hourly) temporal sampling of temperature, depth, and conductivity (Crankshaw and others, 2018; Ingebritsen and Evans, 2019). At Yellowstone Caldera, many streamgages have now added thermistors and specific conductance sensors, allowing estimation of time-dependent chloride flux as a proxy for variations in subsurface heat flux (McCleskey and others, 2012, 2016). Efforts to better understand lakes have also accelerated, with bathymetric mapping and sampling carried out at several locations in the United States. Especially thorough work was done at Yellowstone Lake thanks to the Hydrothermal Dynamics of Yellowstone Lake (HD-YLAKE, https://hdylake.org ) project, funded primarily by the National Science Foundation. In addition to geophysical surveys and recovery of cores and other samples, HD-YLAKE investigations included remotely operated vehicle (ROV) investigations of hydrothermal vents on the lake floor (fig. F2). Data collected by the ROV provided a better understanding of the thermal and chemical influx from lake-bottom hydrothermal systems (Sohn and others, 2017). In this chapter, we focus on detecting changes in the chemistry, temperature, discharge, or water levels of streams, springs, and lakes that can be caused by seismicity, volumetric strains, or increases in gas flux associated with ascending magma. There is unavoidable overlap with other chapters of this report. Samples of water and gas can also be obtained in boreholes ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024), both shallow and deep. Gas monitoring ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–E, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062e.">chapter E , this volume; Lewicki and others, 2024) relies in part on samples from springs and wells, particularly where measurable gas plumes are absent. Water acts as a trigger and lubricant for landslides and sediment-rich floods, and so hydrology has obvious relevance for lahar monitoring, as discussed in of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–H, 6 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062h. ">chapter H (this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). Shared situational awareness among scientists engaged in geophysical, gas, and hydrologic monitoring will improve overall understanding of the volcanic hazard.

Scientific Investigations Report

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular

Geohydrology of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal area, with special reference to the Ocala vicinity

The Cross-Florida Barge Canal route commences at Palatka on the St. Johns River, about 75 miles upstream from the Atlantic Ocean, and extends 110 miles southwestward across Peninsular Florida into deep water in the Gulf of Mexico near Yankeetown. The canal will be equipped with five locks, each 600 feet long and 84 feet wide, and the channel will be a minimum of 12 feet deep and 150 feet wide. From near Ocala northeastward, the canal channel will replace much of the natural channel of the Oklawaha River, and will be excavated into beds of the so-called shallow sand aquifer of Miocene age and younger, which overlies limestone of the Floridan aquifer. Westward from Ocala, most of the canal will be excavated below the potentiometric surface into limestone and dolomite of the Floridan aquifer. Water levels of Rodman, Eureka, and Inglis Pools will be controlled by dams and spillways with the limited exchange of water between the pools and the aquifers. The water levels in the Summit Pools will fluctuate with the natural changes in the ground-water level of the Floridan aquifer, although the stage of the pool will be controlled partly by the stage held in the Eureka Pool. A dynamic inflow-outflow relationship will exist between the Summit Pool and the Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer in the canal area is 1,000 to 1,200 feet thick and consists of limestone and dolomite of middle Eocene Miocene age, including from older to younger, the Lake City, Avon Park, and Ocala limestones plus permeable sandy, dolomitic limestone in the lower part of the Hawthorn Formation. It is possible that most of the flow to the two major springs in the area occurs in the upper 100 feet or so of the aquifer in the Ocala Limestone. The aquifer is underlain by the Oldsmar limestone of early Eocene age and is overlain by sand, clayey sand, clay and shell beds of Miocene through Holocene age, in thickness from a few feet to 300 feet. The permeable beds overlying the Floridan aquifer constitute the shallow aquifer, while the poorly permeable ones act as confining beds where the Floridan aquifer is under artesian conditions. A north-south line drawn separating the head of Silver Springs on the west from the Oklawaha River on the east marks the approximate western limit of a continuous blanket of materials of Miocene-Pliocene(?) age covering the rocks of the Floridan aquifer. East of the line, much of the aquifer is under artesian conditions, particularly in the Oklawaha River valley, although in some areas east of the valley, direct recharge through thick permeable Miocene-Pliocene(?) sands occurs. West of the line, only scattered remnants of a once continuous Miocene-Pliocene(?) cover remain. Lack of the cover is a result of erosion on the crest and flank of the Ocala Uplift, a broad northwest-southeast trending anticlinal upwarp, the axis of which is crossed by the canal route in the Dunnellon area. Over most of this area the Floridan aquifer is unconfined and receives direct recharge through a cover of a few tens of feet of sand and clayey sand of Quaternary age. Tensional stresses during the structural evolution of the Ocala Uplift produced an intersecting system of fractures and normal faults in rocks of the Floridan aquifer. The fractures and faults are important controls for orientation of solution channels and, therefore, for development of ground-water circulation patterns. When the system surface streams, which once drained the Barge Canal area, eroded the poorly permeable Miocene-Pliocene(?) cover from the flanks of the Ocala Uplift, surface runoff was reduced and precipitation began to directly infiltrate the underlying limestones. Now only principal streams remain, such as the Oklawaha and Withlacoochee Rivers and a few short tributaries, while one of the most highly developed subsurface drainage systems in the world has evolved in cavernous limestone of the Floridan aquifer. Two of the larger freshwater springs in the world now discharge from the Floridan aquifer in the canal area. Silver Springs near Ocala discharges an average 531 mgd (million gallons per day) down the 4-mile long Silver River, which flows on poorly permeable beds to the Oklawaha River. Rainbow Springs near Dunnellon discharges on average 468 mgd from numerous orifices in the bed of the 5-mile-long Rainbow River, which flows into the Withlacoochee River. The heads of the springs have migrated to their present positions partly because of a tendency of ground-water levels to decline as permeability in the aquifer is increased due to removal of limestone by solution, and because of mechanical erosion of the limestone in the vicinity of the spring heads. Also, points of principal spring discharges have shifted in the past due to changes in ground-water levels in response to changes in sea level. The subsurface drainage system is continuing to evolve today, as evidenced in part by frequent occurrence of new sinkholes and by the presence of significant amounts of calcium bicarbonate in the spring waters. Rodman Pool, at the east end of the canal, is separated from the Floridan aquifer by poorly permeable materials. The pool's operating water level will be only a few feet above the potentiometric surface at the downstream end, and at or slightly below the potentiometric surface at the upstream end. Little exchange of water between the Rodman Pool and the Floridan aquifer is expected. Eureka Pool, just upstream from Rodman Pool, will also be separated from the Floridan aquifer by poorly permeable beds. However, the stage of the pool will be about 15 feet higher than the natural potentiometric surface at the pool's downstream end, and some seepage into the Floridan aquifer is anticipated through faults and leaky parts of the poorly permeable beds, with a consequent rise in ground-water levels in areas adjacent to the lower end of the pool. Possibilities for particulate contamination of the aquifer will tend to be minimized because of the filtering capacity of the materials through which water must pass to reach the aquifer, although the natural filter will not preclude movement into the aquifer of contaminants which might become dissolved in the pool waters. No significant interchange of water between the pool and the aquifer is expected at the upstream end of the Eureka Pool. Present construction plans indicate an operating stage for Eureka Pool which will range between 38 and 40 feet above mean sea level, although it is possible to dredge the pool deep enough to permit a range in stage of 36 to 40 feet. A backwater effect extending up Silver River from the Eureka Pool is expected to regulate the stage at the head of Silver Springs between 39 and 44 feet above mean sea level if the pool ranges between 36 and 40 feet. If Eureka Pool ranges only between 38 and 40 feet, the range of stage at the head of the springs should be about 41 to 44 feet above mean sea level. From Inglis Lock west, the canal will have direct connection with the Gulf, and canal stage will fluctuate with the Gulf tide. Since the canal stage will be slightly lower than the adjacent ground-water levels along much of the reach, there will be some ground-water inflow to the canal. No significant changes in the existing ground-water regime are expected in the vicinity of Inglis Pool, the first step up in the canal east of the Gulf. Existing ground-water and surface-water levels in the area will not change appreciable, and the natural stage and flow of Rainbow Springs, which will flow by way of Rainbow River into Inglis Pool, should not be affected by canal operations. A possible adverse effect of the canal on the Inglis Pool area could result if sea water is locked up from the Gulf through Inglis Lock. However, the high step of 25 feet at the lock, flushing action of continuous flow from Inglis Pool to the lower reaches of the Withlacoochee River, and use of possible preventive locking procedures should minimize the problem. The potential for adverse effects on the ground-water regime is greatest in the area of the Summit Pool. Through most of the length of the pool, the canal channel will be excavated into limestone of the Floridan aquifer to depths of 12 to 27 feet below the potentiometric surface. Changes that will take place in the ground-water flow system in the Silver Springs drainage area, once the canal is completed, were estimated by flow-net analysis. Variation in aquifer transmissivity was determined by calculating transmissivity in 25 different flow cells surrounding Silver Springs. Transmissivity in the 25 cells averages about 15,600,000 gpd/ft [2,090,000 ft2/day (feet squared)], but transmissivity in the six cells through which the Summit Pool passes ranges from 9,000,000 to 44,000,000 gpd/ft (1,210,000 to 5,900,000 ft2/day). Transmissivity was used to compute static stage of the Summit Pool under given ground-water level conditions. Had the canal existed in May 1968 and had the stage of Eureka Pool been held at 36 feet at the time, the static stage in Summit Pool would have been about 42.1 feet above mean sea level. Thus, a conceptual model of the changes in the potentiometric surface wrought by the finished canal was drawn, and zones of ground-water inflow and outflow were delineated. Most outflow from the Summit Pool to the aquifer should be limited to one 4-mile-long zone along the north side of the pool, about 5 miles south of Silver Springs. It is estimated that a water volume equivalent to about 8 percent of the daily flow of Silver Springs will enter the Summit Pool each day from the southern one-third of the Silver Springs drainage area. A like amount will reenter the aquifer at the main zone of outflow and move toward Silver Springs at an estimated average velocity of about 200 feet per day, if something close to the natural static stage of the pool is maintained by return pumpage of the lockage losses. At a velocity of 200 feet per day, water from the Summit Pool would discharge at Silver Springs about 140 days later. However, any estimate of velocity in the highly cavernous limestone aquifer in the area should be used with caution, because difficult to measure changes in porosity and thickness of major zones of flow may cause large variations in velocity. If all lockage losses are returned to the Summit Pool by pumping from Eureka Pool, no net loss from the Silver Springs drainage area, except for some evaporation from the water surface in the canal and possible leakage around locks, will result from canal operations. The zone of outflow from the Summit Pool to the aquifer will be in a natural potentiometric trough, and the zone of inflow will be in a potentiometric ridge area. The equilibrium water level in the pool will tend to be about 1 foot higher than the altitude of the lowest level in the pre-canal potentiometric trough, and about 2 feet lower than the highest level on the pre-canal potentiometric ridge. West of the Silver Springs drainage area just east of Dunnellon Lock, in the area of a local potentiometric high, the water level in the Summit Pool is expected to be about 15 feet below the natural potentiometric surface. In most areas 2 to 3 miles away from the Summit Pool, effects of the canal on the natural potentiometric surface should be slight. The stage of the Summit Pool, judging from the 36-year record for ground-water level changes and the anticipated indirect effect of the controlled stage in Eureka Pool, should have a maximum of about 10.5 feet with a maximum water level of about 51.5 feet above mean sea level and a minimum of about 41.0 feet above mean sea level. Of particular importance in the Summit Pool is an implementation of well planned construction and operational procedures designed to minimize risks of ground-water contamination.

Florida