SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “General Interest Publication”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

USGS2019

Evaluation of multiple laboratory performance and variability in analysis of recreational freshwaters by a rapid Escherichia coli qPCR method (Draft Method C)

There is interest in the application of rapid quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods for recreational freshwater quality monitoring of the fecal indicator bacteria Escherichia coli ( E. coli ). In this study we determined the performance of 21 laboratories in meeting proposed, standardized data quality acceptance (QA) criteria and the variability of target gene copy estimates from these laboratories in analyses of 18 shared surface water samples by a draft qPCR method developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for E. coli . The participating laboratories ranged from academic and government laboratories with more extensive qPCR experience to “new” water quality and public health laboratories with relatively little previous experience in most cases. Failures to meet QA criteria for the method were observed in 24% of the total 376 test sample analyses. Of these failures, 39% came from two of the “new” laboratories. Likely factors contributing to QA failures included deviations in recommended procedures for the storage and preparation of reference and control materials. A master standard curve calibration model was also found to give lower overall variability in log 10 target gene copy estimates than the delta-delta Ct (ΔΔCt) calibration model used in previous EPA qPCR methods. However, differences between the mean estimates from the two models were not significant and variability between laboratories was the greatest contributor to overall method variability in either case. Study findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of multiple laboratories implementing this or other qPCR water quality monitoring methods with similar data quality acceptance criteria but suggest that additional practice and/or assistance may be valuable, even for some more generally experienced qPCR laboratories. Special attention should be placed on providing and following explicit guidance on the preparation, storage and handling of reference and control materials.

Water Research↗

USGS2024

Outcomes of control and monitoring of a widespread riparian invader (Tamarix spp.): A comparison of synthesis approaches

Effective ecological restoration requires empirical assessment to determine outcomes of projects, but conclusions regarding the effects of restoration treatments on the whole ecosystem remain rare. Control of invasive shrubs and trees in the genus Tamarix and associated riparian restoration in the American Southwest has been of interest to scientists and resource managers for decades; dozens of studies have reported highly variable outcomes of Tamarix control efforts, as measured by a range of response variables, temporal and spatial scales and monitoring strategies. We conducted a literature search and review, meta-analysis and vote count (comparison of numerical outcomes lacking reported variances and/or sample sizes) on published papers that quantitatively measured a variety of responses to control of Tamarix . From 96 publications obtained through a global search on terms related to Tamarix control, we found 52 publications suitable for a meta-analysis (n = 777 comparisons) and 63 publications suitable for two vote counts (n = 1,460 comparisons total; 622 comparisons reported as statistically significant) of response to Tamarix control. We estimated responses to control by treatment type (e.g. cut-stump treatment, burning, biocontrol) and ecosystem component (e.g. vegetation, fauna, fluvial processes). Finally, we compared results of the various synthesis methods to determine whether the increasingly stringent requirements for inclusion led to biased outcomes. Vegetation metrics, especially measures of Tamarix response, were the most commonly assessed. Ecosystem components other than vegetation, such as fauna, soils and hydrogeomorphic dynamics, were under-represented. The meta-analysis showed significantly positive responses by vegetation overall to biocontrol, herbicide and cut-stump treatments. This was primarily due to reduction of Tamarix cover; impacts on replacement vegetation were highly variable. We found concordance amongst our varied synthesis approaches, indicating that increased granularity from stricter quantitative techniques does not come at the cost of a biased sample. Overall, our results indicate that common control methods are generally effective for reducing Tamarix , but the indirect effects on other aspects of the ecosystem are variable and remain understudied. Given that this is a relatively well-studied invasive plant species, our results also illustrate the limitations of not only individual studies, but also of reviews for measuring the impact of invasive species control. We call on researchers to investigate the less commonly studied responses to Tamarix control and riparian restoration including the effects on fauna, soil and hydrogeomorphic characteristics.

NeoBiota↗

USGS2024

An introduction to standardized sampling

In 2009, the first edition of Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fishes was published. This was the first time in the history of fisheries science that standardization of methods and equipment had taken place on such a large geographic scale. Since its publication, the methods have been used extensively across North America by local, state, and federal agencies, organizations, and universities who have seen the advantages of large-scale data comparison. Authors have been invited to present these methods in other locations around the world to help with standard sampling programs on other continents. Now, with large-scale issues such as human-caused climate change, effects of landscape-scale regulations, and effects of habitat degradation continuing to increase in importance, the ability to compare data across wide regions and political boundaries, compare data over time, and collect data with improved accuracy and precision is more important than ever. This new edition of Standard Methods is sponsored by the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), with contributions by numerous state, provincial and federal agencies, and numerous academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). It is authored by over 100 experts in fisheries sampling from across Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Most techniques for water body types addressed in the first edition have been kept the same-in the interest of standardization over time; however, many important additions have been made. Like the first edition, these methods are designed for fish community assessments in North American aquatic systems (e.g., for this edition, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams containing warmwater and coldwater species; the Great Lakes, wetlands, and cenotes). Although other methods may be available that better target a more specific size-group or species, these techniques were selected as most effective for general surveys of these systems and typically are the most effective for capturing the common fishes found in these waters.

Book chapter↗

USGS2006

Occurrence of trihalomethanes in the nation's ground water and drinking-water supply wells, 1985-2002

This report describes the occurrence of trihalomethanes (THMs) in the Nation's ground water and drinking-water supply wells based on analysis of 5,642 samples of untreated ground water and source water collected or compiled during 1985-2002 by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. THMs are a group of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with natural and anthropogenic sources that are of interest because they are associated with acute and chronic health problems in humans. THMs occur in water primarily from chlorination and are classified as disinfection by-products. In this report, the four THMs are discussed in the order of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and then bromoform; this sequence corresponds to largest to smallest chlorine content and smallest to largest bromine content. Four trihalomethanes were detected in less than 20 percent of samples from studies of (1) aquifers, (2) shallow ground water in agricultural areas, (3) shallow ground water in urban areas, (4) domestic wells, and (5) public wells. Detection frequencies for individual THMs in the five studies ranged from zero for shallow ground water in agricultural areas to 19.5 percent for shallow ground water in urban areas. None of the samples from aquifer studies, domestic wells, or public wells had total THM concentrations (the sum of the concentrations of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform) greater than or equal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level of 80 micrograms per liter (?g/L). Comparisons of results among studies of aquifers, shallow ground water in agricultural areas, and shallow ground water in urban areas were used to describe the occurrence of the four THMs in ground water for three different land-use settings-mixed, agricultural, and urban, respectively. At the 0.2-?g/L assessment level, one or more of the four THMs were detected in 7.9 percent of the samples from aquifer studies, 2.2 percent of the samples from shallow ground water in agricultural areas, and 19.5 percent of the samples from shallow ground water in urban areas. In general, detection frequencies and concentrations of the four THMs were greater in shallow ground water in urban areas compared to aquifer studies and to shallow ground water in agricultural areas. For all three of these studies, the most common two-THM mixture at the 0.2-?g/L assessment level was chloroform-bromodichloromethane, and this was the only two-THM mixture found in samples of shallow ground water in agricultural areas. Comparisons of results between studies of domestic wells and public wells were used to describe the occurrence of the four THMs in two different supplies of ground water used for drinking water. At the 0.2-?g/L assessment level, one or more of the four THMs were detected in 5.2 percent of the domestic well samples and in 14.7 percent of the public well samples. In general, detection frequencies and THM concentrations were greater in samples from public wells than from domestic wells. At the 0.2-?g/L assessment level, the six possible two-THM mixtures occurred about six times more frequently in samples from public wells than from domestic wells. One of the most common two-THM mixtures in samples from domestic and public wells was bromodichloromethane-dibromochloromethane. Detection frequency is associated with the chlorine content of the THM compound. In general, for each of the five studies, as the chlorine content of the THM compound decreased, the detection frequency at the 0.2-?g/L assessment level also decreased. The exception was the study of public wells in which the detection frequency of the THMs decreased in the following order: chloroform, bromoform, dibromochloromethane, and bromodichloromethane. At the 0.2-?g/L assessment level, the median concentration for one or more of the four THMs ranged from 0.3 ?g/L (shallow ground water in agricultural a

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2008

Mapping of Florida's coastal and marine resources: Setting priorities workshop

The importance of mapping habitats and bioregions as a means to improve resource management has become increasingly clear. Large areas of the waters surrounding Florida are unmapped or incompletely mapped, possibly hindering proper management and good decisionmaking. Mapping of these ecosystems is among the top priorities identified by the Florida Oceans and Coastal Council in their Annual Science Research Plan. However, lack of prioritization among the coastal and marine areas and lack of coordination of agency efforts impede efficient, cost–effective mapping. A workshop on Mapping of Florida’s Coastal and Marine Resources was sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Southeastern Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). The workshop was held at the USGS Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC) in St. Petersburg, FL, on February 7-8, 2007. The workshop was designed to provide State, Federal, university, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the opportunity to discuss their existing data coverage and create a prioritization of areas for new mapping data in Florida. Specific goals of the workshop were multifold, including to: provide information to agencies on state-of-the-art technology for collecting data; inform participants of the ongoing mapping programs in waters off Florida; present the mapping needs and priorities of the State and Federal agencies and entities operating in Florida; work with State of Florida agencies to establish an overall priority for areas needing mapping; initiate discussion of a unified classification of habitat and bioregions; discuss and examine the need to standardize terminology and data collection/storage so that data, in particular habitat data, can be shared; identify opportunities for partnering and leveraging mapping efforts among agencies and entities; identify impediments and organizational gaps that hinder collection of data for mapping; seek innovative solutions to the primary obstacles identified; identify the steps needed to move mapping of Florida’s oceans and coasts forward, in preparation for a better coordinated, more cost-effective mapping program to allow State and Federal agencies to make better decisions on coastal-resource issues. Over 90 invited participants representing more than 30 State and Federal agencies, universities, NGOs, and private industries played a large role in the success of this two-day workshop. State of Florida agency participants created a ranked priority order for mapping 13 different regions around Florida. The data needed for each of the 13 priority regions were outlined. A matrix considering State and Federal priorities was created, utilizing input from all agencies. The matrix showed overlapping interests of the entities and will allow for partnering and leveraging of resources. The five most basic mapping needs were determined to be bathymetry, high-vertical resolution coastline for sea-level rise scenarios, shoreline change, subsurface geology, and benthic habitats at sufficient scale. There was a clear convergence on the need to coordinate mapping activities around the state. Suggestions for coordination included: creating a glossary of terms: a standard for specifying agency data-mapping needs; creating a geographic information officer (GIO) position or permanent organizing group to maintain communications established at this workshop and to maintain progress on the issues identified during the workshop. The person or group could develop a website, maintain a project-status matrix, develop a list of contacts, create links to legislative updates and links to funding sources; developing a web portal and one-stop/clearinghouse of data. There was general consensus on the need to adopt a single habitat classification system and a strategy to accommodate existing systems smoothly. Unresolved aspects of the systems warrant that a separate workshop would be needed to work out details. Participants recognized that the State priority list would necessarily be updated periodically. An annual review of priorities would facilitate information exchange, mapping activities updates, and re-allocation of funding among changing priorities. It was recognized that mapping of State waters would take billions of dollars and in light of tightening budgets there was need for processes that could be used to appropriate or leverage monies for mapping and reduce data-collection costs. Fourteen different avenues were explored. There was a clear consensus that the linking of public to private partnerships to support mapping was imperative, and ways to achieve this were discussed.

Florida↗

USGS2012

Characterization of the hydrologic resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico, and identification of hydrologic data gaps, 2011

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with San Miguel County, New Mexico, conducted a study to assess publicly available information regarding the hydrologic resources of San Miguel County and to identify data gaps in that information and hydrologic information that could aid in the management of available water resources. The USGS operates four continuous annual streamgages in San Miguel County. Monthly discharge at these streamgages is generally bimodally distributed, with most runoff corresponding to spring runoff and to summer monsoonal rains. Data compiled since 1951 on the geology and groundwater resources of San Miguel County are generally consistent with the original characterization of depth and availability of groundwater resources and of source aquifers. Subsequent exploratory drilling identified deep available groundwater in some locations. Most current (2011) development of groundwater resources is in western San Miguel County, particularly in the vicinity of El Creston hogback, the hogback ridge just west of Las Vegas, where USGS groundwater-monitoring wells indicate that groundwater levels are declining. Regarding future studies to address identified data gaps, the ability to evaluate and quantify surface-water resources, both as runoff and as potential groundwater recharge, could be enhanced by expanding the network of streamgages and groundwater-monitoring wells throughout the county. A series of seepage surveys along the lengths of the rivers could help to determine locations of surface-water losses to and gains from the local groundwater system and could help to quantify the component of streamflow attributable to irrigation return flow; associated synoptic water-quality sampling could help to identify potential effects to water quality attributable to irrigation return flow. Effects of groundwater withdrawals on streamflow could be assessed by constructing monitoring wells along transects between production wells and stream reaches of interest to monitor decline or recovery of the water table, to quantify the timing and extent of water-table response, and to identify the spatial extent of capture zones. Assessment of groundwater potential could be aided by a county-wide distribution of water-level information and by a series of maps of groundwater potential, compiled for each individual aquifer, including saline aquifers, for which the potential for municipal use through desalination could be explored. A county-wide geographic information system hydrologic geodatabase could provide a comprehensive picture of water use in San Miguel County and could be used by San Miguel County as a decision-support tool for future management decisions.

New Mexico↗

USGS2014

Groundwater-quality data in the Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers study unit, 2011-2012: results from the California GAMA program

Groundwater quality in the 2,400-square-mile Santa Cruz, San Gabriel, and Peninsular Ranges Hard Rock Aquifers (Hard Rock) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from March 2011 through March 2012, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Hard Rock study unit was the 35th study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Hard Rock study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated-groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer system is defined as those parts of the aquifers corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) water-quality-monitoring database for the Hard Rock study unit. Groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from the quality in the shallower or deeper water-bearing zones; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the Hard Rock study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 112 wells and springs in 3 study areas (the Santa Cruz, the San Gabriel, and the Peninsular Ranges) in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Eighty-three wells and 11 springs were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and 15 wells and 3 springs were selected to aid in evaluation of water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for field water-quality indicators; organic constituents; one constituent of special interest (perchlorate); naturally occurring inorganic constituents; and radioactive constituents. Naturally occurring isotopes and dissolved noble gases were also measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 209 constituents and water-quality indicators were measured. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at approximately 10 percent of the wells in the Hard Rock study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate samples generally were within the limits of acceptable analytical reproducibility. Median matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 92 percent of the compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH, and to nonregulatory benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by the CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. All organic constituents and most inorganic constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the 112 wells in the Hard Rock study unit were detected at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Of the 149 organic and special-interest constituents, 34 were detected in groundwater samples; concentrations of all detected constituents were less than regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 44 percent of the 94 grid wells sampled, pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 18 percent, and perchlorate was detected in 48 percent. Trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, and radioactive constituents were sampled for at 94 grid wells; most detected concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks. Exceptions in the Hard Rock study unit grid wells include 3 detections of arsenic greater than the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L), 3 detections of boron greater than the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) of 1,000 μg/L, 2 detections of molybdenum greater than the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) of 40 μg/L, 2 detections of nitrite plus nitrate (as nitrogen) greater than the MCL-US of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 3 detections of fluoride greater than the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA) of 2 mg/L, 5 detections of radon-222 greater than the proposed MCL-US of 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and 11 detections of unadjusted gross alpha radioactivity greater than the MCL-US of 15 pCi/L. Seven of the 11 samples having unadjusted gross alpha activity greater than the MCL-US also had total uranium concentrations greater than the MCL-US of 30 μg/L and (or) uranium activities greater than the MCL-CA of 20 pCi/L. Results for constituents with nonregulatory benchmarks set for aesthetic concerns showed that iron concentrations greater than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) of 300 μg/L were detected in samples from 19 grid wells. Manganese concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA of 50 μg/L were detected in 27 grid wells. Chloride was detected at a concentration greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 500 mg/L in one grid well. TDS concentrations in three grid wells were greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 1,000 mg/L.

California↗

USGS2013

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the San Francisco Bay groundwater basins, 2007—California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in the approximately 620-square-mile (1,600-square-kilometer) San Francisco Bay study unit was investigated as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The study unit is located in the Southern Coast Ranges of California, in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties. The GAMA Priority Basin Project is being conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The GAMA San Francisco Bay study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated groundwater within the primary aquifer system, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout the State. The assessment is based on water-quality and ancillary data collected by the USGS from 79 wells in 2007 and is supplemented with water-quality data from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database. The primary aquifer system is defined by the depth interval of the wells listed in the CDPH database for the San Francisco Bay study unit. The quality of groundwater in shallower or deeper water-bearing zones may differ from that in the primary aquifer system; shallower groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. The first component of this study, the status of the current quality of the groundwater resource, was assessed by using data from samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and naturally occurring inorganic constituents, such as major ions and trace elements. Water- quality data from the CDPH database also were incorporated for this assessment. This status assessment is intended to characterize the quality of groundwater resources within the primary aquifer system of the San Francisco Bay study unit, not the treated drinking water delivered to consumers by water purveyors. Relative-concentrations (sample concentration divided by the benchmark concentration) were used for evaluating groundwater quality for those constituents that have Federal and (or) California benchmarks. A relative-concentration greater than (>) 1.0 indicates a concentration greater than a benchmark, and a relative-concentration less than or equal to (≤) 1.0 indicates a concentration equal to or less than a benchmark. Relative-concentrations of organic and special-interest constituents were classified as low (relative- concentration ≤ 0.1), moderate (0.1 < relative- concentration ≤ 1.0), or high (relative-concentration > 1.0). Inorganic constituent relative- concentrations were classified as low (relative-concentration ≤ 0.5), moderate (0.5 < relative-concentration ≤ 1.0), or high (relative- concentration > 1.0). A lower threshold value of relative-concentration was used to distinguish between low and moderate values of organic constituents because organic constituents are generally less prevalent and have smaller relative-concentrations than naturally occurring inorganic constituents. Aquifer-scale proportion was used as the metric for evaluating regional-scale groundwater quality. High aquifer-scale proportion is defined as the percentage of the primary aquifer system that has relative-concentration greater than 1.0 for a particular constituent or class of constituents; proportion is based on an areal rather than a volumetric basis. Moderate and low aquifer-scale proportions were defined as the percentages of the primary aquifer system that have moderate and low relative-concentrations, respectively. Two statistical approaches—grid-based and spatially weighted—were used to evaluate aquifer-scale proportion for individual constituents and classes of constituents. Grid-based and spatially weighted estimates were comparable in the San Francisco Bay study unit (90-percent confidence intervals). Inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks were present at high relative-concentrations in 5.1 percent of the primary aquifer system, and at moderate relative-concentrations in 25 percent. The high aquifer-scale proportion of inorganic constituents primarily reflected high aquifer-scale proportions of barium (3.0 percent) and nitrate (2.1 percent). Inorganic constituents with secondary maximum contaminant levels were present at high relative-concentrations in 14 percent of the primary aquifer system and at moderate relative-concentrations in 33 percent. The constituents present at high relative-concentrations included total dissolved solids (7.0 percent), chloride (6.1 percent), manganese (12 percent), and iron (3.0 percent). Organic constituents with health-based benchmarks were present at high relative-concentrations in 0.6 percent and at moderate relative-concentrations in 12 percent of the primary aquifer system. Of the 202 organic constituents analyzed for, 32 were detected. Three organic constituents were frequently detected (in 10 percent or more of samples): the trihalomethane chloroform, the solvent 1,1,1-trichloroethane and the refrigerant 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane. One special-interest constituent, perchlorate, was detected at moderate relative-concentrations in 42 percent of the primary aquifer system. The second component of this work, the understanding assessment, identified some of the primary natural and human factors that may affect groundwater quality by evaluating land use, physical characteristics of the wells, and geochemical conditions of the aquifer. Results from these evaluations were used to explain the occurrence and distribution of constituents in the study unit.

California↗

USGS1996

Iron and manganese oxide mineralization in the Pacific

Iron, manganese, and iron-manganese deposits occur in nearly all geomorphologic and tectonic environments in the ocean basins and form by one or more of four processes: (1) hydrogenetic precipitation from cold ambient seawater, (2) precipitation from hydrothermal fluids, (3) precipitation from sediment pore waters that have been modified from bottom water compositions by diagenetic reactions in the sediment column and (4) replacement of rocks and sediment. Iron and manganese deposits occur in five forms: nodules, crusts, cements, mounds and sediment-hosted stratabound layers. Seafloor oxides show a wide range of compositions from nearly pure iron to nearly pure manganese end members. Fe/Mn ratios vary from about 24 000 (up to 58% elemental Fe) for hydrothermal seamount ironstones to about 0.001 (up to 52% Mn) for hydrothermal stratabound manganese oxides from active volcanic arcs. Hydrogenetic Fe-Mn crusts that occur on most seamounts in the ocean basins have a mean Fe/Mn ratio of 0.7 for open-ocean seamount crusts and 1.2 for continental margin seamount crusts. Fe-Mn nodules of potential economic interest from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone have a mean Fe/Mn ratio of 0.3, whereas the mean ratio for nodules from elsewhere in the Pacific is about 0.7. Crusts are enriched in Co, Ni and Pt and nodules in Cu and Ni, and both have significant concentrations of Pb, Zn, Ba, Mo, V and other elements. In contrast, hydrothermal deposits commonly contain only minor trace metal contents, although there are many exceptions, for example, with Ni contents up to 0.66%, Cr to 1.2%, and Zn to 1.4%. Chondrite-normalized REE patterns generally show a positive Ce anomaly and abundant ΣREEs for hydrogenetic and mixed hydrogenetic-diagenetic deposits, whereas the Ce anomaly is negative for hydrothermal deposits and ΣREE contents are low. However, the Ce anomaly in crusts may vary from strongly positive in East Pacific crusts to slightly negative in West Pacific crusts, which may reflect the redox conditions of seawater. The concentration of elements in hydrogenetic Fe-Mn crusts depends on a wide variety of water column and crust surface characteristics, whereas concentration of elements in hydrothermal oxide deposits depends of the intensity of leaching, rock types leached, and precipitation of sulphides at depth in the hydrothermal system.

Geological Society Special Publication↗

USGS2015

Groundwater quality data in 15 GAMA study units: results from the 2006–10 Initial sampling and the 2009–13 resampling of wells, California GAMA Priority Basin Project

The Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). From May 2004 to March 2012, the GAMA-PBP collected samples from more than 2,300 wells in 35 study units across the State. Selected wells in each study unit were sampled again approximately 3 years after initial sampling as part of an assessment of temporal trends in water quality by the GAMA-PBP. This triennial (every 3 years) trend sampling of GAMA-PBP study units concluded in December 2013. Fifteen of the study units, initially sampled between January 2006 and June 2010 and sampled a second time between April 2009 and April 2013 to assess temporal trends, are the subject of this report. The initial sampling was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated groundwater used for public water supplies in the 15 study units. In these study units, 730 wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the areas assessed (grid wells, also called “status wells”). Approximately 3 years after the initial sampling, 93 of the previously sampled status wells (approximately 10 percent in each study unit) were randomly selected for trend sampling (“trend wells”). The 15 study units sampled for trends were distributed among 4 hydrogeologic provinces: Central Valley, Basin and Range, Desert, and Transverse and selected Peninsular Ranges. The total number of status wells sampled, along with those sampled again for trends, varied by study unit. In the Central Valley hydrogeologic province, the numbers of status wells and trend wells in each study unit were as follows: Kern County subbasin study unit—47 status wells, 5 trend wells Central Eastside San Joaquin Basin study unit—58 status wells, 6 trend wells Middle Sacramento Valley study unit—71 status wells, 8 trend wells Northern Sacramento Valley study unit—43 status wells, 4 trend wells Madera–Chowchilla study unit—30 status wells, 4 trend wells Western San Joaquin Valley study unit—39 status wells, 4 trend wells. The Basin and Range hydrogeologic province had only one study unit: Owens and Indian Wells Valleys study unit—53 status wells, 6 trend wells. In the Desert hydrogeologic province, the numbers of wells were as follows: Coachella Valley study unit—19 status wells 4 trend wells Colorado River study unit—20 status wells, 3 trend wells Antelope Valley study unit—56 status wells, 6 trend wells Mojave study unit—52 status wells, 7 trend wells Borrego Valley, Central Desert and Low-Use Basins of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts study unit—49 status wells, 6 trend wells. In the Transverse and Selected Peninsular Ranges hydrogeologic province, the numbers of wells were as follows: Coastal Los Angeles Basin study unit—61 status wells, 8 trend wells Upper Santa Ana Watershed study unit—90 status wells, 16 trend wells Santa Clara River Valley study unit—42 status wells, 6 trend wells. The groundwater samples were analyzed for a number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), and naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements). Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water) also were measured to help identify processes affecting groundwater quality and the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. More than 200 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, or samples for matrix spikes) were collected at 34 percent of the trend wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. On the basis of detections in laboratory and field blanks in samples from GAMA-PBP study units, including the study units presented here, some groundwater results were adjusted in this report. Differences between replicate samples were mostly within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptably low variability in analytical results. Median matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for 189 of the 224 compounds for which matrix spikes were analyzed (84 percent). This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater used for drinking water typically is treated, disinfected, and blended with other waters to attain acceptable water quality. The benchmarks used in this report apply to treated water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. To provide some context for the results, however, concentrations of constituents measured in these groundwater samples were compared with benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Public Health. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking-water quality are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the trend wells were found at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Two volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene—were detected in samples from one or more wells at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks, and three VOCs—chloroform, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene—were detected in at least 10 percent of the trend-well samples from the initial sampling period and the later trend sampling period. No pesticides were detected at concentrations near or greater than their health-based benchmarks. Three pesticide constituents—atrazine, deethylatrazine, and simazine—were detected in more than 10 percent of the trend-well samples in both sampling periods. Perchlorate, a constituent of special interest, was detected at a concentration greater than its health-based benchmark in samples from one trend well in the initial sampling and trend sampling periods, and in an additional trend well sample only in the trend sampling period. Most detections of nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements in samples from trend wells were less than health-based benchmarks in both sampling periods. Exceptions included nitrate, fluoride, arsenic, boron, molybdenum, strontium, and uranium; these were all detected at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks in at least one well sample in both sampling periods. Lead and vanadium were detected above their health-based benchmarks in one sample each collected in the initial sampling period only. The isotopic ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in water and the activities of tritium and carbon-14 generally changed little between sampling periods.

California↗

USGS2021

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the northern Sierra Nevada foothills domestic-supply aquifer study units, 2015–17—California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in the northern Sierra Nevada foothills region of California was investigated as part of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP). The region was divided into two study units: the Yuba-Bear watersheds (YBW) study unit and the American-Cosumnes-Mokelumne watersheds (ACMW) study unit. The GAMA-PBP made a spatially unbiased assessment of aquifer systems used for domestic drinking-water supply in the study region, which are predominantly composed of fractured, hard-rock aquifers of varying lithology. These assessments characterized the quality of raw groundwater to evaluate ambient conditions in the domestic-supply aquifer and not the quality of treated drinking water. The study included three components: (1) a status assessment , which characterized the quality of groundwater resources used for domestic drinking-water supply in the YBW and ACMW study units; (2) an understanding assessment , which evaluated natural and anthropogenic explanatory factors that could potentially affect groundwater quality in the study region; and (3) a comparative assessment between the groundwater resources used for domestic and public drinking-water supply in the study region. The status assessment was based on data collected by the GAMA-PBP from 74 sites in the YBW study unit during 2015–16 and 67 sites in the ACMW study unit from 2016 to 2017. To contextualize water-quality results, concentrations of water-quality constituents in ambient groundwater were compared to regulatory and non-regulatory benchmarks typically used by the State of California and Federal agencies as health-based or aesthetic standards for public drinking water. The status assessment used a grid-based method to estimate proportions of groundwater resources with concentrations approaching or exceeding benchmark thresholds. This method provides spatially unbiased results and allows inter-comparability with similar groundwater-quality assessments. Inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks were present at high relative concentration (RC), meaning they exceeded the benchmark threshold, in 5.4 and 10 percent of domestic-supply aquifer systems in the YBW and ACMW study units, respectively. Inorganic constituents with aesthetic-based benchmarks were detected at high-RCs in 20 and 28 percent of the YBW and ACMW study units, respectively. The inorganic constituents present at high RC were arsenic, barium, boron, molybdenum, strontium, nitrate, adjusted gross-alpha particle activity, chloride, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, iron, manganese, and hardness. Groundwater samples were tested for presence or absence of three microbial indicators (total coliform, Escherichia coli , and Enterococci ). At least one microbial indicator was present in 26 and 28 percent of the YBW and ACMW study units, respectively. At least one organic constituent was detected in 30 and 42 percent of the YBW and ACMW study units, respectively. Organic constituents were not present at high RC, but tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and toluene were detected in the YBW study unit at moderate RC (between the benchmark concentration and one-tenth of the benchmark concentration). Methyl tert -butyl ether (MTBE) and chloroform were present at low RC (less than one-tenth of the benchmark concentration) in the YBW and ACMW study units with detection frequencies greater than 10 percent. Perchlorate, a constituent of special interest, was detected in 31 and 41 percent of the YBW and ACMW study units, respectively, at either low or moderate RCs. Relations among select water-quality constituents and potential explanatory factors were evaluated using statistical and graphical approaches. Nitrate, microbial indicators, and perchlorate were all correlated to elevation-dependent variables relating to climate, land use, and recharge condition. Isotopic and dissolved noble-gas tracers indicated these water-quality constituents are associated with recharge conditions associated with irrigation during the summer dry-season, which is common in areas of rural-residential or agricultural land uses. Higher concentrations of iron and manganese were primarily associated with anoxic groundwater in aquifers of metasedimentary lithology. Increased hardness was primarily associated with anoxic groundwater in aquifers of mafic-ultramafic or metavolcanics lithologies at lower elevations in the study region in the Melones fault zone. Chloroform and MTBE were associated with shallow groundwater (wells depths less than 130 m) under oxic and anoxic redox conditions, respectively. The comparative assessment evaluated differences between the aquifer systems used for domestic- and public-supply in study region based on (1) well-construction characteristics, and (2) water quality. Analysis of over 60,000 well-completion reports in the study region showed that although domestic-supply wells span the deepest depth zones in regional aquifers, median depths for public-supply wells were significantly greater than those of domestic-supply wells in both study units. Water-quality data from more than 300 public-supply wells in the study region were assessed using a spatially weighted method for calculation aquifer-scale proportions and compared with the domestic-supply assessment results. Detections of inorganic constituents at high RC and detection frequencies for organic constituents were generally similar between the domestic- and public-supply aquifer systems in both study units, with a few notable exceptions in the ACMW study unit: nitrate was greater for the public- compared to domestic-supply aquifer system and both manganese, hardness, and MTBE were greater in the domestic- compared to public-supply aquifer system. These differences are likely related to contrasting land uses, aquifer lithologies, landscape positions, and depths characterizing domestic- and public-supply wells in the ACMW study unit. Overall, fewer samples from domestic-supply wells in the northern Sierra Nevada foothills exceeded health-based benchmarks compared to aesthetic-based benchmarks for groundwater quality. Exceedences of health-based benchmarks were primarily caused by nitrate and coliform bacteria, which were associated with recharge from diverted surface water used primarily for irrigation. Exceedences of aesthetic-based benchmarks were primarily caused by iron, managanese, and hardness, which were associated with geologic factors. Regional irrigation practices and aquifer lithology can affect groundwater quality in fractured-rock aquifers in the northern Sierra Nevada foothills used for domestic drinking-water supply.

California↗

USGS1940

Ground-water resources of Kansas

Introduction: Water is a necessity of life. Accordingly, every person is deeply interested in the subject of water supply. He knows that he must have water to drink. He depends indirectly on water for all his food and clothing. He may want water in which to wash. Civilized man has learned also that water serves admirably for a large and ever enlarging list of uses that depend on its easy convertibility from a liquid to a solid or gaseous state and its adaptability as a chemical solvent, a medium for transfer of matter or energy, and a regulator of temperature. The average consumption of water in towns and cities of the United States amounts to about 100 gallons per person per day. Because of long familiarity with never-failing supplies of water provided by nature, or equally, because of unthinking dependence on others, many individuals are probably unaware of their interest in water, but let water become difficult or impossible to obtain, or let the quality of water be greatly changed, and there is immediate concern. Many Kansas persons — without doubt too many — give little thought to the subject of water when rainfall is normal and when ponds and streams are full, but not too full. Kansas has a smaller natural water supply than many other regions, but we are used to these conditions, and it is strongly marked departures from what we regard as normal that cause anxiety. Periods of excessive heat and drought such as have recurred in Kansas, especially during the last half-dozen years, bring hardships to very many persons, particularly dwellers on the farm. Alarm is felt when field crops and pasture shrivel from lack of moisture and from heat, when there is insufficient water for the stock, when wells go dry, and when even some towns and cities must haul water in tank cars. Everyone is then water-conscious, as is true also under reverse conditions, when overabundance of rainfall produces disastrous floods. It is obvious, however, that the subject of water supply should not be given attention only in times of deficiency or overabundance. All citizens of Kansas should have enduring interest in quests of water control and conservation that will make for equable supply. No individual or government agency can increase or diminish the annual rainfall, nor safeguard wholly against floods. It is possible, on the other hand, largely to avoid the distress due to severe shortage of water in recent years. This statement calls attention to the subject of water in the ground, or as commonly known, ground water. I have been asked to discuss the underground water resources of Kansas. I am asked to give answers to such questions as: In what places and under what conditions may water that is suitable for domestic and stock use be obtained from wells? Why are some water wells in Kansas never-failing large producers of excellent waters, whereas other yield only small amounts of poor water and readily go dry? What improvements are possible in methods of finding and utilizing the ground-water resources that exist in Kansas? What provisions can be made to safeguard best against effects of prolonged drought? These questions call for a discussion of some general principles that apply to accumulation and movement of water beneath the surface of in Kansas, and especially to the various geologic conditions that are fundamental factors in controlling variation in water supply from the below ground. It will be desirable also to consider the characteristics of various districts in Kansas that may be differentiated as natural ground-water provinces, pointing out the distinguishing features of these districts. The basis for these distinctions is a difference in water-supply conditions that depends mainly on variation in underground rock structure. Importance of ground-water resources. — The importance of Kansas' ground-water resources may be emphasized from various viewpoints and in different ways. More than three-fourths of the public water supplies of Kansas are obtained from wells. In 1939, only 60 out of 375 municipal water supplies in Kansas, which is 16 percent, utilized surface waters. If the water wells of the cities and those located on all privately owned land in the state were suddenly destroyed, making it necessary to go to streams, springs, lakes (which are almost all artificial), and ponds for water supply domestic, stock, and industrial use, there would be almost incalculable difficulty and expense. If one could not go to springs, or dig new wells, or use any surface water derived from underground flow, much of Kansas would become uninhabitable. These suggested conditions seem absurd, but they emphasize our dependence on ground-water resources. Fromm a quantitative standpoint, ground-water supplies existent in Kansas far outweigh surface waters that are present in the state at any one time. No exact figures for such comparison can be given, but, taking 384 square miles as the total surface water area of the state and estimating an average water depth of five feet, the computed volume of surface waters is found to be 1/100th of that of the conservatively estimated ground-water storage in Kansas. The latter takes account only of potable fresh water and is based on an assumed mean thickness of ten feet of reservoir having an effective porosity of twenty percent. It is to be remembered, however, that most of the surface water is run-off, which soon leaves the state, stream valleys being replenished from rainfall and flow from ground-water reservoirs. Most of the ground-water supplies, on the other hand, have existed for many years with almost no appreciable movement--in fact, it is reasonably certain that some well water drawn from beneath the surface of Kansas in 1940 represents rainfall in this region at time before the first white man entered Kansas, even before the visit of Coronado in the 16th century. Most ground water is to be regarded as water in storage rather than water in transit.

Kansas↗

USGS2013

Groundwater-quality data in the Santa Barbara study unit, 2011: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 48-square-mile Santa Barbara study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from January to February 2011, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Santa Barbara study unit was the thirty-fourth study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Santa Barbara study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated-groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer system is defined as those parts of the aquifers corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the Santa Barbara study unit. Groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from the quality in the shallower or deeper water-bearing zones; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the Santa Barbara study unit located in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, groundwater samples were collected from 24 wells. Eighteen of the wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and six wells were selected to aid in evaluation of water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds); constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]); naturally occurring inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], alkalinity, and arsenic, chromium, and iron species); and radioactive constituents (radon-222 and gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity). Naturally occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water, stables isotopes of inorganic carbon and boron dissolved in water, isotope ratios of dissolved strontium, tritium activities, and carbon-14 abundances) and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 281 constituents and water-quality indicators were measured. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at up to 12 percent of the wells in the Santa Barbara study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate samples generally were within the limits of acceptable analytical reproducibility. Matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 82 percent of the compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH and to non-regulatory benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. All organic constituents and most inorganic constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the 18 grid wells in the Santa Barbara study unit were detected at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Of the 220 organic and special-interest constituents sampled for at the 18 grid wells, 13 were detected in groundwater samples; concentrations of all detected constituents were less than regulatory and non-regulatory health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 61 percent of the 18 grid wells sampled, pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 11 percent, and perchlorate was detected in 67 percent. Polar pesticides and their degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and NDMA were not detected in any of the grid wells sampled in the Santa Barbara study unit. Eighteen grid wells were sampled for trace elements, major and minor ions, nutrients, and radioactive constituents; most detected concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks. Exceptions are one detection of boron greater than the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) of 1,000 micrograms per liter (μg/L) and one detection of fluoride greater than the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA) of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Results for constituents with non-regulatory benchmarks set for aesthetic concerns from the grid wells showed that iron concentrations greater than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) of 300 μg/L were detected in three grid wells. Manganese concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA of 50 μg/L were detected in seven grid wells. Chloride was detected at a concentration greater than the SMCL-CA recommended benchmark of 250 mg/L in four grid wells. Sulfate concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA recommended benchmark of 250 mg/L were measured in eight grid wells, and the concentration in one of these wells was also greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 500 mg/L. TDS concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA recommended benchmark of 500 mg/L were measured in 17 grid wells, and concentrations in six of these wells were also greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 1,000 mg/L.

California↗

USGS2010

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the central-eastside San Joaquin Basin, 2006: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,695-square-mile Central Eastside San Joaquin Basin (Central Eastside) study unit was investigated as part of the Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The GAMA Central Eastside study unit was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. During March through June 2006, samples were collected from 78 wells in Stanislaus and Merced Counties, 58 of which were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and 20 of which were sampled to evaluate changes in water chemistry along groundwater-flow paths (understanding wells). Water-quality data from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database also were used for the assessment. An assessment of the current status of the groundwater quality included collecting samples from wells for analysis of anthropogenic constituents such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesticides, as well as naturally occurring constituents such as major ions and trace elements. The assessment of status is intended to characterize the quality of untreated-groundwater resources within the primary aquifer system, not the treated drinking water delivered to consumers by water purveyors. The primary aquifer system (hereinafter, primary aquifer) is defined as that part of the aquifer corresponding to the perforation interval of wells listed in the CDPH database for the Central Eastside study unit. The quality of groundwater in shallower or deeper water-bearing zones may differ from that in the primary aquifer; shallower groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. The primary aquifer is represented by the grid wells, of which 90 percent had depths to the tops of their perforations of about 80 to 330 feet and depths to bottom of about 100 to 670 feet. Relative-concentrations (sample concentration divided by benchmark concentration) were used as the primary metric for assessing the status of water quality for those constituents that have Federal and (or) California human health or aesthetic benchmarks. A relative-concentration greater than (>) 1.0 indicates a concentration above a benchmark, and less than or equal to (≤) 1.0 indicates a concentration equal to or below a benchmark. For organic and special interest constituents, relative-concentrations were classified as high (>1.0), moderate (≤1.0 and >0.1), or low (≤0.1). For inorganic constituents, relative-concentrations were classified as high (>1.0), moderate (≤1.0 and >0.5), or low (≤0.5). The threshold between low and moderate classifications was lower for organic and special interest constituents than for inorganic constituents because organic constituents generally are less prevalent and have smaller relative-concentrations than inorganic constituents. Grid-based and spatially-weighted approaches, the latter incorporating data from all CDPH wells, were used to evaluate the proportion of the primary aquifer (aquifer-scale proportions) with high, moderate, or low relative-concentrations. For individual constituents or classes of constituents, the aquifer-scale high proportion is the percentage of the area of the study unit having high relative-concentrations within the depth-zones of the primary aquifer. Aquifer-scale moderate and low proportions are defined similarly. Spatially-weighted aquifer-scale high proportions nearly always fell within the 90-percent confidence interval of grid-based aquifer-scale high proportions, indicating that the grid-based approach yielded statistically equivalent results to the spatially-weighted approach incorporating CDPH data. The status assessment for inorganic constituents showed that inorganic constituents (one or more) were high, relative to human-health benchmarks, in 18.0 percent of the primary aquifer, moderate in 44.0 percent, and low in 38.0 percent. Of inorganic constituents with human-health benchmarks, arsenic, vanadium, and nitrate were detected at high relative-concentrations in 15.6 percent, 3.6 percent, and 2.1 percent, respectively, of the primary aquifer. Of inorganic constituents with secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL), manganese, iron, and TDS were detected at high relative-concentrations in 4.5 percent, 2.2 percent, and 1.7 percent, respectively, of the primary aquifer. The status assessment for organic constituents showed that organic constituents (one or more) were high, relative to human-health benchmarks, in a smaller proportion of the primary aquifer (1.2 percent) than inorganic constituents (18.0 percent). Organic constituents had moderate relative-concentrations in 14.3 percent, and had low relative-concentrations or were not detected in 84.5 percent, of the primary aquifer. The proportion of the primary aquifer with high relative-concentrations of organic constituents reflected high proportions of the discontinued soil fumigant 1,2-dibromo-3-chlororopane (DBCP; 1.0 percent) and the solvent tetrachloroethene (PCE; 0.2 percent). Most of the organic and special interest constituents detected in groundwater in the Central Eastside study unit have human-health benchmarks. Of the 205 organic and special interest constituents analyzed for, 36 constituents were detected. Of these constituents, 32 were detected only at low relative-concentrations. Four constituents, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, DBCP, and perchlorate, were detected at moderate relative-concentrations in grid wells. Nine organic and special-interest constituents were detected frequently (detected in greater than 10 percent of samples): the trihalomethanes chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane; the solvent PCE; the herbicides atrazine, simazine, and metolachlor, and special-interest constituent perchlorate. An assessment of understanding of the groundwater quality included sampling of understanding wells, some of which were perforated in shallower or deeper portions of the aquifer system than the primary aquifer, and analysis of correlations of groundwater quality with land use, depth, age classification, and other potential explanatory factors. The understanding assessment indicated that the concentrations of many constituents were related to depth and groundwater age. However, concentrations of individual constituents or constituent classes also were sometimes related to geochemical conditions, lateral position in the flow system, or land use. High and moderate relative-concentrations of uranium, nitrate, and total dissolved solids (TDS) were detected in some wells where the tops of perforations are within the upper 200 feet of the aquifer system. In wells with the depth to the top of perforations below this depth, concentrations were low. A similar pattern occurred for the sum of herbicide concentrations. These vertical water-chemistry patterns are consistent with the hydrogeologic setting, in which return flows from agricultural and urban land use are the major source of recharge, and withdrawals for irrigation and urban supply are the major source of discharge, resulting in substantial vertical components of groundwater flow. The decrease in concentrations of many constituents with depth reflects in part that groundwater gets older with depth. Tritium, helium-isotopes, and carbon-14 data were used to classify the predominant age of groundwater samples into three categories: modern (water that has entered the aquifer in the last 50 years), pre-modern (water that entered the aquifer more than 50 years, up to tens of thousands of years, ago), and mixed (mixtures of waters with modern and pre-modern ages). Uranium, nitrate, and herbicide concentrations were significantly higher in groundwater having modern- and mixed-ages than pre-modern ages, indicating that these constituents may be affected by anthropogenic activities in the last 50 years. Other patterns in the distribution of nitrate, uranium, and TDS are evident. Isotopic and geochemical data are consistent with partial denitrification of nitrate in some reducing groundwaters in the western and deeper parts of the flow system. Uranium and TDS concentrations increase from east to west across the valley, along the direction of regional lateral groundwater flow. High and moderate relative-concentrations of arsenic can be attributed to reductive dissolution of manganese or iron oxides, or to desorption by high pH waters. Arsenic concentrations also increased with increasing depth and groundwater age. High to moderate relative-concentrations of vanadium primarily are related to high pH under oxic conditions. The frequency of detections of DBCP was greater in areas with orchard-vineyard land use >40 percent and at depths <200 feet. THMs and solvents were correlated positively with percent urban land use. Herbicide concentrations were correlated negatively with percent natural land use. Perchlorate concentrations were significantly greater in waters having modern and mixed ages than waters having pre-modern ages and were significantly and positively correlated with two land uses—percent orchard/vineyard land use and percent urban land use.

California↗

USGS2012

Groundwater-quality data in the Borrego Valley, Central Desert, and Low-Use Basins of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts study unit, 2008-2010--Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 12,103-square-mile Borrego Valley, Central Desert, and Low-Use Basins of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts (CLUB) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from December 2008 to March 2010, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program's Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The CLUB study unit was the twenty-eighth study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA CLUB study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer systems, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated-groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer systems (hereinafter referred to as primary aquifers) are defined as parts of aquifers corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the CLUB study unit. The quality of groundwater in shallow or deep water-bearing zones may differ from the quality of groundwater in the primary aquifers; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the CLUB study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 52 wells in 3 study areas (Borrego Valley, Central Desert, and Low-Use Basins of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts) in San Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Forty-nine of the wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and three wells were selected to aid in evaluation of water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally-occurring inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], alkalinity, and species of inorganic chromium), and radioactive constituents (radon-222, radium isotopes, and gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity). Naturally-occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, boron, and strontium in water, stable isotopes of carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon, activities of tritium, and carbon-14 abundance) and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of sampled groundwater. In total, 223 constituents and 12 water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at up to 10 percent of the wells in the CLUB study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate samples generally were within the limits of acceptable analytical reproducibility. Median matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 85 percent of the compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is delivered to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH, and to non-regulatory benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. Most inorganic constituents detected in groundwater samples from the 49 grid wells were detected at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. In addition, all detections of organic constituents from the CLUB study-unit grid-well samples were less than health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 17 of the 49 grid wells sampled (approximately 35 percent), pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 5 of the 47 grid wells sampled (approximately 11 percent), and perchlorate was detected in 41 of 49 grid wells sampled (approximately 84 percent). Trace elements, major and minor ions, and nutrients were sampled for at 39 grid wells, and radioactive constituents were sampled for at 23 grid wells; most detected concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks. Exceptions in the grid-well samples include seven detections of arsenic greater than the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L); four detections of boron greater than the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) of 1,000 μg/L; six detections of molybdenum greater than the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) of 40 μg/L; two detections of uranium greater than the MCL-US of 30 μg/L; nine detections of fluoride greater than the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA) of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L); one detection of nitrite plus nitrate (NO 2- +NO 3- ), as nitrogen, greater than the MCL-US of 10 mg/L; and four detections of gross alpha radioactivity (72-hour count), and one detection of gross alpha radioactivity (30-day count), greater than the MCL-US of 15 picocuries per liter. Results for constituents with non-regulatory benchmarks set for aesthetic concerns showed that a manganese concentration greater than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) of 50 μg/L was detected in one grid well. Chloride concentrations greater than the recommended SMCL-CA benchmark of 250 mg/L were detected in three grid wells, and one of these wells also had a concentration that was greater than the upper SMCL-CA benchmark of 500 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations greater than the recommended SMCL-CA benchmark of 250 mg/L were measured in six grid wells. TDS concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA recommended benchmark of 500 mg/L were measured in 20 grid wells, and concentrations in 2 of these wells also were greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 1,000 mg/L.

California↗

USGS1999

Regional geologic map of San Andreas and related faults in Carrizo Plain, Temblor, Caliente and La Panza Ranges and vicinity, California: A digital database

This Open-File Report is a digital geologic map database. The report serves to introduce and describe the digital data. There is no paper map included in the Open-File Report. The report includes PostScript and PDF plot files that can be used to plot images of the geologic map sheet and explanation sheet. This digital map database is prepared from a previously published map by Dibblee (1973). The geologic map database delineates map units that are identified by general age, lithology, and clast size following the stratigraphic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. For descriptions of the units, their stratigraphic relations, and sources of geologic mapping, consult the explanation sheet (of99-14_4b.ps or of99-14_4d.pdf), or the original published paper map (Dibblee, 1973). The scale of the source map limits the spatial resolution (scale) of the database to 1:125,000 or smaller. For those interested in the geology of Carrizo Plain and vicinity who do not use an ARC/INFO compatible Geographic Information System (GIS), but would like to obtain a paper map and explanation, PDF and PostScript plot files containing map images of the data in the digital database, as well as PostScript and PDF plot files of the explanation sheet and explanatory text, have been included in the database package (please see the section 'Digital Plot Files', page 5). The PostScript plot files require a gzip utility to access them. For those without computer capability, we can provide users with the PostScript or PDF files on tape that can be taken to a vendor for plotting. Paper plots can also be ordered directly from the USGS (please see the section 'Obtaining Plots from USGS Open-File Services', page 5). The content and character of the database, methods of obtaining it, and processes of extracting the map database from the tar (tape archive) file are described herein. The map database itself, consisting of six ARC/INFO coverages, can be obtained over the Internet or by magnetic tape copy as described below. The database was compiled using ARC/INFO, a commercial Geographic Information System (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California), with version 3.0 of the menu interface ALACARTE (Fitzgibbon and Wentworth, 1991, Fitzgibbon, 1991, Wentworth and Fitzgibbon, 1991). The ARC/INFO coverages are stored in uncompressed ARC export format (ARC/INFO version 7.x). All data files have been compressed, and may be uncompressed with gzip, which is available free of charge over the Internet via links from the USGS Public Domain Software page (http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/doc/edchome/ndcdb/public.html). ARC/INFO export files (files with the .e00 extension) can be converted into ARC/INFO coverages in ARC/INFO (see below) and can be read by some other Geographic Information Systems, such as MapInfo via ArcLink and ESRI's ArcView.

California↗

USGS2011

Groundwater-quality data in the northern Coast Ranges study unit, 2009: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 633-square-mile Northern Coast Ranges (NOCO) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from June to November 2009, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program's Priority Basin Project (PBP) and the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The NOCO study unit was the thirtieth study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Northern Coast Ranges study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer systems, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer systems (hereinafter referred to as primary aquifers) are defined as that part of the aquifer corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the NOCO study unit. The quality of groundwater in shallow or deep water-bearing zones may differ from the quality of groundwater in the primary aquifers; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the NOCO study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 58 wells in 2 study areas (Interior Basins and Coastal Basins) in Napa, Lake, Mendocino, Glenn, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties. The 58 wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study areas. GAMA-PBP wells sampled as part of the spatially-distributed, randomized grid-cell network are referred to as "grid wells."The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic and special-interest constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and perchlorate), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon [DOC], major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], and alkalinity), radioactive constituents (radon-222, radium isotopes, gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, lead-210, and polonium-210), and microbial indicators (F-specific and somatic coliphage, Escherichia coli [E. coli] and total coliform). Naturally occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water, stable isotopes of carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon, activities of tritium, and carbon-14 abundance), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 239 constituents and 12 field water-quality indicators were measured. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix-spikes) were collected at up to 12 percent of the wells in the NOCO study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate samples generally were within the limits of acceptable analytical reproducibility. Matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 89 percent of the compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwa

Data Series↗

USGS2009

Groundwater quality data for the northern Sacramento Valley, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,180-square-mile Northern Sacramento Valley study unit (REDSAC) was investigated in October 2007 through January 2008 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within REDSAC and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 66 wells in Shasta and Tehama Counties. Forty-three of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 23 were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial constituents. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate, stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen of water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 275 constituents and field water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and sampmatrix spikes) were collected at approximately 8 to 11 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data obtained from the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges for nearly all compounds, indicating acceptably low variability. Matrix-spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with those thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from REDSAC were below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and pesticides were detected in less than one-quarter of the samples and were generally less than a hundredth of any health-based thresholds. NDMA was detected in one grid well above the NL-CA. Concentrations of all nutrients and trace elements in samples from REDSAC wells were below the health-based thresholds except those of arsenic in three samples, which were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). However, none of these wells were public-supply wells. Concentrations of all radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds except radon-222, which was detected above the proposed MCL-US of 300 pCi/L in samples from 11 grid wells. Most of the samples from REDSAC wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic or technical concerns. A few samples contained iron, manganese, or pH at levels above the SMCL-CA or SMCL-US thresholds.

California↗