SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Water Resources Technical Report”

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.

407 records · Page 23Linked to original sources

USGS2022

Science mission requirements for a globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel for U.S. Scientific Ocean Drilling

Through the collection and analysis of shallow and deep subseafloor sediments, rocks, fluids, and life, scientific ocean drilling has enriched our understanding of the complex Earth system. Among other achievements, scientific ocean drilling has documented the history of Earth’s climate, the waxing and waning of polar ice sheets, the past changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation, the existence and function of microbial life in the subseafloor, the compositional variations in Earth’s crust and underlying mantle, and the physical and chemical processes acting at subduction zones, including those associated with tsunamigenic earthquakes. Over the decades, more than 12,000 articles that depend on analyses of scientific ocean drilling samples and geophysical data have been published, many detailing breakthrough contributions to global knowledge about the Earth system. Approximately 45% of these publications were led by U.S.-affiliated authors (International Ocean Discovery Program Publication Services, 2021). Since the mid-1980s, the workhorse of this multidisciplinary, international research effort has been the riserless D/V JOIDES Resolution, operated by Texas A&M University with funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). D/V JOIDES Resolution has conducted the vast majority of scientific ocean drilling expeditions and collected most of the scientific cores over that period, including 82% of the expeditions and 93% of the cores in the last decade alone, despite being one of three platforms that is operated within the International Ocean Discovery Program. However, D/V JOIDES Resolution is approaching the end of its useful life. With a strong commitment to continue scientific ocean drilling beyond the end of the current phase, the community developed a document outlining the research frontiers that should be pursued. Exploring Earth by Scientific Ocean Drilling: 2050 Science Framework (Koppers and Coggon, 2020) describes seven scientific strategic objectives that focus on understanding interconnections within the Earth system and five flagship initiatives that integrate these objectives into long-term research efforts that address issues facing society. Additional elements in the 2050 Science Framework, including STEM education, workforce development, technology development, and innovative applications of data analytics, will advance the goals of scientific ocean drilling. Addressing the 2050 Science Framework also requires building partnerships with allied U.S. and international science programs and strengthening existing ones. To implement a significant portion of the 2050 Science Framework, the U.S. scientific community seeks to lease or acquire a newly built, globally ranging, state-of-the art, riserless drilling vessel. The many and varied technical and human resources requirements for successful accomplishment of scientific and educational goals summarized in this document and described in detail in the 2050 Science Framework require broad community input and careful consideration. Following receipt of NSF’s formal Request for Assistance to the United States Science Support Program (USSSP), the U.S. scientific ocean drilling community conducted a one-year exercise to identify its national scientific needs and priorities in order to determine the Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) presented here. This community effort included: (1) a U.S. community-wide survey to identify the specific operational and technical capabilities critical to addressing science in the 2050 Science Framework; (2) a series of online workshops focusing on critical capabilities identified by the survey; and (3) a large in-person workshop to synthesize the results of the survey and the virtual workshops (Appendix 1). The approach was designed to reach as many participants as possible. Overall, 278 survey responses were received from U.S. community members, representing 104 unique institutions from 39 states and the District of Columbia, and 137 unique individuals participated in the workshops (Appendix 2). The results of this effort comprise two classes of SMRs: Foundational Science Mission Requirements and Primary Science Mission Requirements. Foundational SMRs define minimum criteria for a new riserless drilling vessel that can address significant portions of the 2050 Science Framework. Primary SMRs build upon the Foundational SMRs and will create more robust science opportunities and data collection capabilities, will increase progress in addressing the 2050 Science Framework objectives, and will provide more real-time ship-to-shore interaction to improve science productivity, engagement, and outreach. Modern safety and environmental standards, including meeting standards to access protected waters such as exclusive economic zones, extended continental shelves, or high latitudes, while being cognizant of the vessel’s environmental footprint. Safe and efficient operations in global locations and in water depths from 70 m to 6000+ m, with total drill string length of at least 7000 m. High-quality core and data collection from a range of key subseafloor environments. Advanced heave compensation, dynamic positioning, and drill pipe stability. Modern mud and cement/casing systems. Critical onboard measurements for safety, operational decision-making, documentation of ephemeral properties, mission-specific science, and long-term science goals that extend beyond a single expedition. Designated and appropriate space for sample and data preservation. Highly skilled onboard personnel, including technical staff for curation and core handling; support for safety, time-sensitive, and critical shipboard measurements; computer support; equipment and instrument repair; application support; and data assurance. Primary Science Mission Requirements include: Flexible shipboard space for laboratories and on deck to ensure safe, successful implementation of diverse science objectives and operations. Minimizing contamination of recovered samples. Over-the-side capabilities for science-supporting technology (e.g., remotely operated vehicles, water- column sampling, sediment-water interface sampling). Downhole logging and measurements. Expanded borehole observatory capabilities. Reliable and consistent ship-to-shore communications. NSF’s investment in a new globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel will have a powerful economic multiplier effect, including the infusion of additional science support funds in the United States for training and research, the development of new technologies and tools, and the associated scientific and technical workforce development. The skills and knowledge gained through scientific ocean drilling are translatable to careers in fields such as sustainable energy development (e.g., geothermal and offshore wind), carbon sequestration, data management and cyberinfrastructure, biotechnology, communications, science education, policy, hazard mitigation, and environmental management. The United States is a leader in a well-established and internationally collaborative scientific ocean drilling community. A modern, globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel will allow the United States to expand its leadership position, address broad scientific questions that current capabilities preclude, and cultivate equitable international, multidisciplinary collaborations that will ensure scientific ocean drilling’s future success.

Report↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2013

Geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources: Oligocene Frio and Anahuac Formations, United States Gulf of Mexico coastal plain and State waters

The Oligocene Frio and Anahuac Formations were assessed as part of the 2007 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessment of Tertiary strata of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Basin onshore and State waters. The Frio Formation, which consists of sand-rich fluvio-deltaic systems, has been one of the largest hydrocarbon producers from the Paleogene in the Gulf of Mexico. The Anahuac Formation, an extensive transgressive marine shale overlying the Frio Formation, contains deltaic and slope sandstones in Louisiana and Texas and carbonate rocks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. In downdip areas of the Frio and Anahuac Formations, traps associated with faulted, rollover anticlines are common. Structural traps commonly occur in combination with stratigraphic traps. Faulted salt domes in the Frio and Anahuac Formations are present in the Houston embayment of Texas and in south Louisiana. In the Frio Formation, stratigraphic traps are found in fluvial, deltaic, barrier-bar, shelf, and strandplain systems. The USGS Tertiary Assessment Team defined a single, Upper Jurassic-Cretaceous-Tertiary Composite Total Petroleum System (TPS) for the Gulf Coast basin, based on previous studies and geochemical analysis of oils in the Gulf Coast basin. The primary source rocks for oil and gas within Cenozoic petroleum systems, including Frio Formation reservoirs, in the northern, onshore Gulf Coastal region consist of coal and shale rich in organic matter within the Wilcox Group (Paleocene–Eocene), with some contributions from the Sparta Sand of the Claiborne Group (Eocene). The Jurassic Smackover Formation and Cretaceous Eagle Ford Formation also may have contributed substantial petroleum to Cenozoic reservoirs. Modeling studies of thermal maturity by the USGS Tertiary Assessment Team indicate that downdip portions of the basal Wilcox Group reached sufficient thermal maturity to generate hydrocarbons by early Eocene; this early maturation is the result of rapid sediment accumulation in the early Tertiary, combined with the reaction kinetic parameters used in the models. A number of studies indicate that the migration of oil and gas in the Cenozoic Gulf of Mexico basin is primarily vertical, occurring along abundant growth faults associated with sediment deposition or along faults associated with salt domes. The USGS Tertiary assessment team developed a geologic model based on recurring regional-scale structural and depositional features in Paleogene strata to define assessment units (AUs). Three general areas, as described in the model, are found in each of the Paleogene stratigraphic intervals assessed: “Stable Shelf,” “Expanded Fault,” and “Slope and Basin Floor” zones. On the basis of this model, three AUs for the Frio Formation were defined: (1) the Frio Stable Shelf Oil and Gas AU, containing reservoirs with a mean depth of about 4,800 feet in normally pressured intervals; (2) the Frio Expanded Fault Zone Oil and Gas AU, containing reservoirs with a mean depth of about 9,000 feet in primarily overpressured intervals; and (3) the Frio Slope and Basin Floor Gas AU, which currently has no production but has potential for deep gas resources (>15,000 feet). AUs also were defined for the Hackberry trend, which consists of a slope facies stratigraphically in the middle part of the Frio Formation, and the Anahuac Formation. The Frio Basin Margin AU, an assessment unit extending to the outcrop of the Frio (or basal Miocene), was not quantitatively assessed because of its low potential for production. Two proprietary, commercially available databases containing field and well production information were used in the assessment. Estimates of undiscovered resources for the five AUs were based on a total of 1,734 reservoirs and 586,500 wells producing from the Frio and Anahuac Formations. Estimated total mean values of technically recoverable, undiscovered resources are 172 million barrels of oil (MMBO), 9.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (TCFG), and 542 million barrels of natural gas liquids for all of the Frio and Anahuac AUs. Of the five units assessed, the Frio Slope and Basin Floor Gas AU has the greatest potential for undiscovered gas resources, having an estimated mean of 5.6 TCFG. The Hackberry Oil and Gas AU shows the second highest potential for gas of the five units assessed, having an estimated mean of 1.8 TCFG. The largest undiscovered, conventional crude oil resource was estimated for the Frio Slope and Basin Floor Gas AU; the estimated mean for oil in this AU is 110 MMBO.

Louisiana;Texas↗

USGS2010

Groundwater-quality data in the Colorado River study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 188-square-mile Colorado River Study unit (COLOR) was investigated October through December 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 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 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the technical project lead. The Colorado River study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within COLOR, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 28 wells in three study areas in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. Twenty wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the Study unit; these wells are termed ‘grid wells’. Eight additional wells were selected to evaluate specific water-quality issues in the study area; these wells are termed ‘understanding wells.’ The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], gasoline oxygenates and degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, 1,4-dioxane, and 1,2,3-trichlorpropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents. Concentrations of naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, approximately 220 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at approximately 30 percent of the wells, and the results 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 significant source of bias in the data. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges and 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 acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared to regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and to thresholds established for aesthetic concerns 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 were below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) were detected in approximately 35 percent of grid well samples; all concentrations were below health-based thresholds. Pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in about 20 percent of all samples; detections were below health-based thresholds. No concentrations of constituents of special interest or nutrients were detected above health-based thresholds. Most of the major and minor ion constituents sampled do not have health-based thresholds; the exception is chloride. Concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids detected in some of the well samples were above the nonenforceable thresholds for aesthetic concerns. Concentrations of fluoride were detected in 5 samples (from 4 grid wells and 1 understanding well) above the maximum contaminant level for California (MCL-CA). Concentrations of most of the trace elements in samples from the COLOR study were below health-based thresholds; exceptions included arsenic above the MCL-US, boron above the notification level for California (NL-CA), iron and manganese above the secondary maximum contaminant level for California (SMCL-CA), and molybdenum and strontium above the lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) threshold. Most detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds; exceptions were alpha, uranium, and radon radioactivity. Alpha radioactivity with 72 hour count detections occurred in four grid wells and one understanding well, and 30-day count detections in two grid wells above the MCL-US. Uranium was detected twice in grid wells above the MCL-US threshold. Also, radon-222 was detected at concentrations above the proposed MCL-US in 19 samples (14 grid and 5 understanding wells). No radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US upper threshold.

California↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2020

Fate and behavior tools related to inland spill response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in Federal science support

Executive Summary There is a growing body of tools available for science support for determining the fate and behavior of industrial and agricultural chemicals that are rapidly injected (“spilled”) into aquatic environments. A 2-day roundtable-style workshop was held by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Middleton, Wisconsin, in December 2017 to describe and explore existing Federal science support for spill fate and behavior tools used for inland spills, ongoing and new fate and behavior studies, and science gaps in planning and response tools as part of the USGS Midcontinent Region’s efforts to include spill response as part of its strategic plans. A total of 28 attendees representing a variety of Federal, State, and regional entities presented on programs and tools used in various aspects of spill response. Most programs and tools discussed were for spills in riverine environments but tools and applications for spills in lakes, on land surfaces, in urban storm sewer networks, and groundwater also were discussed. A primary workshop focus was to facilitate communication and increase potential for future collaboration among agencies for inland spill science support. The role and need for more USGS science support within the inland spill community was discussed. Enhanced communication is needed within the USGS and the U.S. Department of the Interior science programs, as well as within and among other agencies that do emergency planning and response. A main conclusion of the workshop was that there are untapped resources of the USGS outlined in the agency’s science strategy that could strengthen science support for fate and behavior tools in inland areas, especially in the Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins where large freshwater resources overlap with dense corridors of oil and hazardous substances, with transportation networks, and with large populations centers. Fate and behavior tools are being developed quickly for inland spill response by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with local and regional entities. Applicability of these tools ranges from planning and preparedness, to the early stages of spill response for protection of human life and property, and to the application of monitoring and models to assess the long-term consequences of spills. Key findings from the workshop, with an emphasis on potential further development of USGS science support, include the following: •The national and regional response to spills occurs within an established system that must be respected by all parties involved in spill response. The USGS’s role is to support spill responders who are physically working at a spill scene, deploying booms and using other efforts to contain and recover spilled materials. •The USGS has tools that have been used throughout spill response operations, from early response to recovery and restoration. Developing a more formal role for the USGS to participate in science support for inland spills on a consistent basis is a desired outcome. This will require the USGS to improve internal and external communication and would be best accomplished by assigning one or more coordinator positions within the agency to plan and oversee USGS spill-response efforts. More involvement of the USGS on National and Regional Response Teams, especially in the realm of the Science and Technology Subcommittees, will gofar in increasing external communication and integration of fate and behavior tools. •Rapid response to spills requires modeling and mapping of plumes and associated time-of-travel estimation for a range of stream sizes across the United States. Many existing models use USGS streamgage data and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Nearly all existing models would benefit from updated linkages to USGS StreamStats and its soon-to-be released time-of-travel estimates,real-time velocity, stream morphology, and slope data. Integrating USGS tools with those from other agencies could be done to better serve the larger spill response community. • A problem is that existing models to rapidly predict plume extent, as well as more followup/longer-term fate and transport models, can be unknown or unavailable to spill responders. Thus, creating and strengthening linkages among USGS scientists skilled at using these tools is needed to support spill response with the on-scene responders. • Research for inland spill fate and behavior done outside of an immediate spill response can assist with spill planning and preparedness by (1) revealing sites likely to experience spills in the future (high-risk sites) and (2) understanding how a spilled substance might behave under a range of environmental conditions. However, USGS research on this topic has been scarce and subject to funding availability. Examples include the 2010 Line 6B Spill release into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where the USGS provided science support for a variety of fate and behavior tools for stream and impoundment environments. A long-term research site in Bemidji, Minnesota, provides important insights into transformations and longevity of spilled oil in groundwater and groundwater-surface water interactions. • Linking stream models to other components of this inland environment, including groundwater, overland flow, and karst, is needed. Stream network data can be linked to underground conduits such as storm sewers and karst groundwater systems. Stream models can also be linked with geospatial data such as that contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interactive mapping tools. • The USGS is uniquely qualified to collect water-quality data during spills in the United States because of its many geographically dispersed water science centers, its knowledge and preparedness for flood measurement and documentation, and its cadre of skilled water-quality employees. Rapid-deployment gages, used for floods, could also be used for spills if they included spill-specific sensors. Coordinated expertise at USGS water and environmental science centers can be used for monitoring spill effects and for assessing risk to water quality and ecological communities. • Scientists at the USGS have proven capable of providing science coordination and technical assistance within the Incident Command Structure at the request of the lead on-scene coordinator. This external coordination, as well as internal communication within USGS Water, Hazards, and Ecosystems Mission Areas, could be improved by establishing and naming a USGS spills coordinator. Scott Morlock, Jo Ellen Hinck, and Faith Fitzpatrick are currently (2017) serving in informal coordination roles in addition to their traditional duties.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2009

Groundwater-quality data in the Madera-Chowchilla study unit, 2008: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 860-square-mile Madera–Chowchilla study unit (MADCHOW) was investigated in April and May 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 MADCHOW, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 35 wells in Madera, Merced, and Fresno Counties. Thirty of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and five more were selected to provide additional sampling density to aid in understanding processes affecting groundwater quality (flow-path wells). Detection summaries in the text and tables are given for grid wells only, to avoid over-representation of the water quality in areas adjacent to flow-path wells. Groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], low-level 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane [DBCP] and 1,2-dibromoethane [EDB], pesticides and pesticide degradates, polar pesticides and metabolites, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], perchlorate, and low-level 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (uranium isotopes, and gross alpha and gross beta particle activities). Naturally occurring isotopes and geochemical tracers (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, and activities of tritium and carbon-14), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, approximately 300 constituents and field water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 11 percent of the wells sampled for each analysis, and the results obtained from 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 data for the groundwater samples were not compromised by possible contamination during sample collection, handling or analysis. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges. 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 groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the 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 are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with regulatory thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from MADCHOW wells were below drinking-water thresholds. Organic compounds (VOCs and pesticides) were detected in about 40 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than 1/100 of regulatory or non-regulatory health-based thresholds, although the concentrations of low-level DBCP in 10 percent and low-level EDB in 3 percent of the samples from grid wells were above the corresponding USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCL-USs). Perchlorate was detected in 70 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than one-tenth of the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA). Low-level 1,2,3-TCP was detected in 33 percent of the samples from grid wells, and all concentrations were less than 1/1,000 of the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US). Most concentrations of trace elements and nutrients in samples were below regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds. Concentrations were above the MCL-US for nitrate in 7 percent of the samples from grid wells, for arsenic and uranium in 13 percent each of the samples from grid wells; and the concentration of vanadium was above the CDPH notification level (NL–CA) in 3 percent of the samples from grid wells. Detections of radioactive constituents were below regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds in most samples. Combined activities of uranium isotopes were detected above the MCL-CA in 20 percent of the subset of 25 grid well samples analyzed, and gross alpha particle activity was detected above the MCL-US in 20 percent of the samples from the 30 total grid wells. Most of the samples from MADCHOW grid wells had concentrations of major and minor ions, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL-CAs), which are nonenforceable thresholds set for aesthetic and technical concerns. Twenty percent of the samples from grid wells contained specific-conductance values, or concentrations of chloride, total dissolved solids, or manganese above the respective SMCL–CAs.

California↗

USGS2009

Groundwater quality data in the Mojave study unit, 2008: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,500 square-mile Mojave (MOJO) study unit was investigated from February to April 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). MOJO was the 23rd of 37 study units to be sampled as part of the GAMA Priority Basin Project. The MOJO study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated ground water used for public water supplies within MOJO, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 59 wells in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. Fifty-two of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and seven were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of 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 (nutrients, dissolved organic carbon [DOC], major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, radium isotopes, and radon-222). Naturally occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate, and activities of tritium and carbon-14), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 230 constituents and water-quality indicators (field parameters) were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 5–8 percent of the wells, 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 was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples generally were within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptable analytical reproducibility. 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, untreated 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 untreated ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated ground water were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic and technical concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and thresholds for drinking-water are for illustrative purposes only, and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those thresholds. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples in the 59 wells in MOJO were found at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. In MOJO’s 52 grid wells, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in 40 percent of the wells, and pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 23 percent of the grid wells. Results for health-based thresholds in MOJO grid wells showed that all of the detections of organic compounds in samples from MOJO grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of a single detection of NDMA above the California Department of Public Health notification level (NL-CA). Trace elements and radioactive constituents were sampled for at 19 MOJO grid wells and most detections were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include: six detections of arsenic above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US), two detections of boron and one detection of vanadium above the NL-CA, one detection each of molybdenum and strontium that were above the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US), and one detection of fluoride just above the MCL-CA of 2 µg/L. Most detections of radioactive constituents in the MOJO grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of one detection of gross alpha radioactivity (72-hour count and 30-day count) above the MCL-CA, and 17 grid wells (of 19 sampled) that had activities of radon-222 above the proposed MCL-US of 300 pCi/L, but all were below the proposed alternative MCL-US of 4,000 pCi/L. All of the samples collected from the 19 MOJO grid wells for trace elements, and most of the samples for major ions and total dissolved solids (TDS), had measured concentrations below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Four grid wells had TDS concentrations above the California Department of Public Health secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) recommended threshold of 500 mg/L, and three of these wells were also above the SMCL-CA upper threshold of 1,000 mg/L. Four grid wells (of 19 sampled) had sulfate measured at concentrations above the recommended SMCL-CA threshold of 250 mg/L, and one of these detections was also above the upper SMCL-CA threshold of 500 mg/L. One grid well had chloride levels at a concentration above the upper SMCL-CA threshold of 500 mg/L. Eleven grid wells (of 52 sampled) had pH values outside of the SMCL-US range for pH.

California↗

USGS2000

Geohydrology and numerical simulation of groundwater flow in the central Virgin River Basin of Iron and Washington Counties, Utah

Because rapid growth of communities in Washington and Iron Counties, Utah, is expected to cause an increase in the future demand for water resources, a hydrologic investigation was done to better understand ground-water resources within the central Virgin River basin. This study focused on two of the principal ground-water reservoirs within the basin: the upper Ash Creek basin ground-water system and the Navajo and Kayenta aquifer system. The ground-water system of the upper Ash Creek drainage basin consists of three aquifers: the uppermost Quaternary basin-fill aquifer, the Tertiary alluvial-fan aquifer, and the Tertiary Pine Valley monzonite aquifer. These aquifers are naturally bounded by the Hurricane Fault and by drainage divides. On the basis of measurements, estimates, and numerical simulations of reasonable values for all inflow and outflow components, total water moving through the upper Ash Creek drainage basin ground-water system is estimated to be about 14,000 acre-feet per year. Recharge to the upper Ash Creek drainage basin ground-water system is mostly from infiltration of precipitation and seepage from ephemeral and perennial streams. The primary source of discharge is assumed to be evapotranspiration; however, subsurface discharge near Ash Creek Reservoir also may be important. The character of two of the hydrologic boundaries of the upper Ash Creek drainage basin ground-water system is speculative. The eastern boundary provided by the Hurricane Fault is assumed to be a no-flow boundary, and a substantial part of the ground-water discharge from the system is assumed to be subsurface outflow beneath Ash Creek Reservoir along the southern boundary. However, these assumptions might be incorrect because alternative numerical simulations that used different boundary conditions also proved to be feasible. The hydrogeologic character of the aquifers is uncertain because of limited data. Differences in well yield indicate that there is considerable variability in the transmissivity of the basin-fill aquifer. Field data also indicate that the basin-fill aquifer is more transmissive than the underlying alluvial-fan aquifer. Data from the Pine Valley monzonite aquifer indicate that its transmissivity may be highly variable and that it is strongly influenced by the connection of fractures. The Navajo and Kayenta aquifers provide most of the potable water to the municipalities of Washington County. Because of large outcrop exposures, uniform grain size, and large stratigraphic thickness, these formations are able to receive and store large amounts of water. In addition, structural forces have resulted in extensive fracture zones that enhance ground-water recharge and movement within these aquifers. Aquifer testing of the Navajo aquifer indicates that horizontal hydraulic-conductivity values range from 0.2 to 32 feet per day at different locations and may be primarily dependent on the extent of fracturing. Limited data indicate that the Kayenta aquifer generally is less transmissive than the Navajo aquifer. The aquifers are bounded to the south and west by the erosional extent of the formations and to the east by the Hurricane Fault, which completely offsets these formations and is assumed to be a lateral no-flow boundary. Like the Hurricane Fault, the Gunlock Fault is assumed to be a lateral no-flow boundary that divides the Navajo and Kayenta aquifers within the study area into two parts: the main part, between the Hurricane and Gunlock Faults; and the Gunlock part, west of the Gunlock Fault. Generally, the water in the Navajo and Kayenta aquifers contains few dissolved minerals. However, two distinct areas contain water with dissolved-solids concentrations greater than 500 milligrams per liter: a larger area north of the city of St. George and a smaller area a few miles west of the town of Hurricane. Mass-balance calculations indicate that in the higher-dissolved-solids area north of St. George, as much as 2.7 cubic feet per second may be entering the aquifer from underlying formations. For the area west of Hurricane, as much as 1.5 cubic feet per second may be entering the aquifer from underlying formations. On the basis of measurements, estimates, and numerical simulations, total water moving through the Navajo and Kayenta aquifers is estimated to be about 25,000 acre-feet per year for the main part and 5,000 acre-feet per year for the Gunlock part. The primary source of recharge is assumed to be infiltration of precipitation in the main part and seepage from the Santa Clara River in the Gunlock part. The primary source of discharge is assumed to be well discharge for both the main and Gunlock parts of the aquifers. Numerical simulations indicate that faults with major offset, such as the Washington Hollow Fault and an unnamed fault near Anderson Junction, may impede horizontal ground-water flow. Also, increased horizontal hydraulic conductivity along the orientation of predominant surface fracturing may be an important factor in regional ground-water flow. Simulations with increased north-south hydraulic conductivity substantially improved the match to measured water levels in the central area of the model between Snow Canyon and Mill Creek. Numerical simulation of the Gunlock part, using aquifer properties determined for the city of St. George municipal well field, resulted in a reasonable representation of regional water levels and estimated seepage from and to the Santa Clara River. To further quantify the Gunlock part of the Navajo and Kayenta aquifers, a better understanding of ground-water flow at the Gunlock Fault is needed.

Utah↗

USGS2010

Groundwater-quality data for the Sierra Nevada study unit, 2008: Results from the California GAMA program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 25,500-square-mile Sierra Nevada study unit was investigated in June through October 2008, as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Sierra Nevada study was designed to provide statistically robust assessments of untreated groundwater quality within the primary aquifer systems in the study unit, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer systems (hereinafter, primary aquifers) are defined by the depth of the screened or open intervals of the wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database of wells used for public and community drinking-water supplies. The quality of groundwater in shallower or deeper water-bearing zones may differ from that in the primary aquifers; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to contamination from the surface. In the Sierra Nevada study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 84 wells (and springs) in Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Madera, Mariposa, Fresno, Inyo, Tulare, and Kern Counties. The wells were selected on two overlapping networks by using a spatially-distributed, randomized, grid-based approach. The primary grid-well network consisted of 30 wells, one well per grid cell in the study unit, and was designed to provide statistical representation of groundwater quality throughout the entire study unit. The lithologic grid-well network is a secondary grid that consisted of the wells in the primary grid-well network plus 53 additional wells and was designed to provide statistical representation of groundwater quality in each of the four major lithologic units in the Sierra Nevada study unit: granitic, metamorphic, sedimentary, and volcanic rocks. One natural spring that is not used for drinking water was sampled for comparison with a nearby primary grid well in the same cell. Groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA] and perchlorate), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major ions, total dissolved solids, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (radium isotopes, radon-222, gross alpha and gross beta particle activities, and uranium isotopes). Naturally occurring isotopes and geochemical tracers (stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water, stable isotopes of carbon, carbon-14, strontium isotopes, and tritium), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 10 percent of the wells sampled for each analysis, 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, handling, and analytical procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges, with few exceptions. 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, groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to finished drinking 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 groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH and with nonregulatory aesthetic and technical benchmarks established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water benchmarks are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with regulatory benchmarks. All organic constituents and most inorganic constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the 30 primary grid wells in the Sierra Nevada study unit were detected at concentrations less than drinking-water benchmarks. Of the 150 organic and special-interest constituents analyzed, 21 were detected in groundwater samples; all concentrations were less than regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks, and most were less than 1/10th of benchmark levels. One or more organic constituents were detected in 37 percent of the primary grid wells, and perchlorate was detected in 27 percent of the primary grid wells. Most samples analyzed for inorganic and radioactive constituents had concentrations or activities less than regulatory and nonregulatory health-based benchmarks. Nutrients were not detected at concentrations greater than health-based benchmarks. Six of the 30 primary grid wells (20 percent) and 7 of the 53 lithologic grid wells had concentrations of or activities for one or two constituents that were greater than the benchmarks. Constituents present in one or more samples at concentrations or activities greater than health-based benchmarks were arsenic (5 wells, MCL-US), gross alpha particle activity (4 wells, MCL-US), boron (2 wells, NL-CA), fluoride (1 well, MCL-CA), and selenium (1 well, MCL-US). Two of the wells that had high gross alpha particle activities had uranium concentrations (MCL-CA) and uranium activities (MCL-CA) greater than the benchmark levels. Four of the 29 samples analyzed had activities of radon-222 greater than the proposed alternative MCL-US. Most samples analyzed for inorganic constituents that had nonregulatory, aesthetic-based benchmarks (SMCLs) had concentrations less than these benchmarks. Total dissolved solids concentrations were less than the upper SMCL-CA in all 83 primary and lithologic grid well samples, and TDS concentrations were less than the recommended SMCL-CA in 79 of these samples. Manganese concentrations were greater than the SMCL-CA in 2 of the 30 primary grid wells (7 percent) and in 6 of the 53 lithologic grid wells, and iron concentrations were greater than the SMCL-CA in the same 2 primary grid wells and in 5 of the same lithologic grid wells.

California↗

USGS2013

Historical methane hydrate project review

In 1995, U.S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the volume of natural gas stored in the hydrate accumulations of the United States. That study, along with numerous other studies, has shown that the amount of gas stored as methane hydrates in the world greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a scientific and technical challenge and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and occurrence in nature. Methane hydrate research in recent years has mostly focused on: (1) documenting the geologic parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates in nature, (2) assessing the volume of natural gas stored within various gas hydrate accumulations, (3) analyzing the production response and characteristics of methane hydrates, (4) identifying and predicting natural and induced environmental and climate impacts of natural gas hydrates, and (5) analyzing the effects of methane hydrate on drilling safety. Methane hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-‐lattice holds gas molecules in a cage-‐like structure. The gas and water becomes a solid under specific temperature and pressure conditions within the Earth, called the hydrate stability zone. Other factors that control the presence of methane hydrate in nature include the source of the gas included within the hydrates, the physical and chemical controls on the migration of gas with a sedimentary basin containing methane hydrates, the availability of the water also included in the hydrate structure, and the presence of a suitable host sediment or “reservoir”. The geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrates have become collectively known as the “methane hydrate petroleum system”, which has become the focus of numerous hydrate research programs. Recognizing the importance of methane hydrate research and the need for a coordinated effort, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-‐193, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act called for the Secretary of Energy to begin a methane hydrate research and development program in consultation with other U.S. federal agencies. At the same time a new methane hydrate research program had been launched in Japan by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to develop plans for a methane hydrate exploratory drilling project in the Nankai Trough. Since this early start we have seen other countries including India, China, Canada, and the Republic of Korea establish large gas hydrate research and development programs. These national led efforts have also included the investment in a long list of important scientific research drilling expeditions and production test studies that have provided a wealth of information on the occurrence of methane hydrate in nature. The most notable expeditions and projects have including the following: -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 164 (1995) -‐Japan Nankai Trough Project (1999-‐2000) -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 (2004) -‐Japan Tokai-‐oki to Kumano-‐nada Project (2004) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg I (2005) -‐Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (2005) -‐Malaysia Gumusut-‐Kakap Project (2006) -‐India NGHP Expedition 01 (2006) -‐China GMGS Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg II (2009) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 02 (2010) -‐MH-‐21 Nankai Trough Pre-‐Production Expedition (2012-‐2013) -‐Mallik Gas Hydrate Testing Projects (1998/2002/2007-‐2008) -‐Alaska Mount Elbert Stratigraphic Test Well (2007) -‐Alaska Iġnik Sikumi Methane Hydrate Production Test Well (2011-‐2012) Research coring and seismic programs carried out by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), starting with the ODP Leg 164 drilling of the Blake Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean in 1995, have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the geologic controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of gas hydrates in marine environments. For the most part methane hydrate research expeditions carried out by the ODP and IODP provided the foundation for our scientific understanding of gas hydrates. The methane hydrate research efforts under ODP-‐IODP have mostly dealt with the assessment of the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate, with a specific goal to study the role methane hydrates may play in the global carbon cycle. Over the last 10 years, national led methane hydrate research programs, along with industry interest have led to the development and execution of major methane hydrate production field test programs. Two of the most important production field testing programs have been conducted at the Mallik site in the Mackenzie River Delta of Canada and in the Eileen methane hydrate accumulation on the North Slope of Alaska. Most recently we have also seen the completion of the world’s first marine methane hydrate production test in the Nankai Trough in the offshore of Japan. Industry interest in gas hydrates has also included important projects that have dealt with the assessment of geologic hazards associated with the presence of hydrates. The scientific drilling and associated coring, logging, and borehole monitoring technologies developed in the long list of methane hydrate related field studies are one of the most important developments and contributions associated with methane hydrate research and development activities. Methane hydrate drilling has been conducted from advanced scientific drilling platforms like the JOIDES Resolution and the D/V Chikyu, which feature highly advanced integrated core laboratories and borehole logging capabilities. Hydrate research drilling has also included the use of a wide array of industry, geotechnical and multi-‐service ships. All of which have been effectively used to collect invaluable geologic and engineering data on the occurrence of methane hydrates throughout the world. Technologies designed specifically for the collection and analysis of undisturbed methane hydrate samples have included the development of a host of pressure core systems and associated specialty laboratory apparatus. The study and use of both wireline conveyed and logging-‐while-‐drilling technologies have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the in-‐situ nature of hydrate-‐bearing sediments. Recent developments in borehole instrumentation specifically designed to monitor changes associated with hydrates in nature through time or to evaluate the response of hydrate accumulations to production have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the complex nature and evolution of methane hydrate systems. Our understanding of how methane hydrates occur and behave in nature is still growing and evolving – we do not yet know if methane hydrates can be economically produced, nor do we know fully the role of hydrates as an agent of climate change or as a geologic hazard. But it is known for certain that scientific drilling has contributed greatly to our understanding of hydrates in nature and will continue to be a critical source of the information to advance our understanding of methane hydrates.

Report↗