USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20175043

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the Bear Valley and Lake Arrowhead Watershed Study Unit, 2010: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Abstract

Groundwater quality in the 112-square-mile Bear Valley and Lake Arrowhead Watershed (BEAR) study unit was investigated as part of the Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The study unit comprises two study areas (Bear Valley and Lake Arrowhead Watershed) in southern California in San Bernardino County. The GAMA-PBP is conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The GAMA BEAR study was designed to provide a spatially balanced, robust assessment of the quality of untreated (raw) groundwater from the primary aquifer systems in the two study areas of the BEAR study unit. The assessment is based on water-quality collected by the USGS from 38 sites (27 grid and 11 understanding) during 2010 and on water-quality data from the SWRCB-Division of Drinking Water (DDW) database. The primary aquifer system is defined by springs and the perforation intervals of wells listed in the SWRCB-DDW water-quality database for the BEAR study unit. This study included two types of assessments: (1) a status assessment , which characterized the status of the quality of the groundwater resource as of 2010 by using data from samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and naturally present inorganic constituents, such as major ions and trace elements, and (2) an understanding assessment , which evaluated the natural and human factors potentially affecting the groundwater quality. The assessments were intended to characterize the quality of groundwater resources in the primary aquifer system of the BEAR study unit, not the treated drinking water delivered to consumers. Bear Valley study area and the Lake Arrowhead Watershed study area were also compared statistically on the basis of water-quality results and factors potentially affecting the groundwater quality. Relative concentrations (RCs), which are sample concentration of a particular constituent divided by its associated health- or aesthetic-based benchmark concentrations, were used for evaluating the groundwater quality for those constituents that have Federal or California regulatory or non-regulatory benchmarks for drinking-water quality. An RC greater than 1.0 indicates a concentration greater than a benchmark. Organic (volatile organic compounds and pesticides) and special-interest (perchlorate) constituent RCs were classified as “high” (RC greater than 1.0), “moderate” (RC less than or equal to 1.0 and greater than 0.1), or “low” (RC less than or equal to 0.1). For inorganic (radioactive, trace element, major ion, and nutrient) constituents, the boundary between low and moderate RCs was set at 0.5. Aquifer-scale proportion was used as the primary metric in the status assessment for evaluating groundwater quality at the study-unit scale or for its component areas. High aquifer-scale proportion was defined as the percentage of the area of the primary aquifer system with a RC greater than 1.0 for a particular constituent or class of constituents; the percentage is based on area rather than volume. Moderate and low aquifer-scale proportions were defined as the percentage of the primary aquifer system with moderate and low RCs, respectively. A spatially weighted statistical approach was used to evaluate aquifer-scale proportions for individual constituents and classes of constituents. The status assessment for the Bear Valley study area found that inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks were detected at high RCs in 9.0 percent of the primary aquifer system and at moderate RCs in 13 percent. The high RCs of inorganic constituents primarily reflected high aquifer-scale proportions of fluoride (in 5.4 percent of the primary aquifer system) and arsenic (3.6 percent). The RCs of organic constituents with health-based benchmarks were high in 1.0 percent of the primary aquifer system, moderate in 8.1 percent, and low in 70 percent. Organic constituents were detected in 79 percent of the primary aquifer system. Two groups of organic constituents and two individual organic constituents were detected at frequencies greater than 10 percent of samples from the USGS grid sites: trihalomethanes (THMs), solvents, methyl tert -butyl ether (MTBE), and simazine. The special-interest constituent perchlorate was detected in 93 percent of the primary aquifer system; it was detected at moderate RCs in 7.1 percent and at low RCs in 86 percent. The status assessment in the Lake Arrowhead Watershed study area showed that inorganic constituents with human-health benchmarks were detected at high RCs in 25 percent of the primary aquifer system and at moderate RCs in 41 percent. The high aquifer-scale proportion of inorganic constituents primarily reflected high aquifer-scale proportions of radon‑222 (in 62 percent of the primary aquifer system) and uranium (26 percent). RCs of organic constituents with health-based benchmarks were moderate in 7.7 percent of the primary aquifer system and low in 46 percent. Organic constituents were detected in 54 percent of the primary aquifer system. The only organic constituents that were detected at frequencies greater than 10 percent of samples from the USGS grid sites were THMs. Perchlorate was detected in 62 percent of the primary aquifer system at uniformly low RCs. The second component of this study, the understanding assessment , identified the natural and human factors that could have affected the groundwater quality in the BEAR study unit by evaluating statistical correlations between water-quality constituents and potential explanatory factors. The potential explanatory factors evaluated were land use (including density of septic tanks and leaking or formerly leaking underground fuel tanks), site type, aquifer lithology, well construction (well depth and depth to the top-of-perforated interval), elevation, aridity index, groundwater-age distribution, and oxidation-reduction condition (including pH and dissolved oxygen concentration). Results of the statistical evaluations were used to explain the distribution of constituents in groundwater of the BEAR study unit. In the Bear Valley study area, high and moderate RCs of fluoride were found in sites known to be influenced by hydrothermic conditions or that had high concentrations of fluoride historically. The high RC of arsenic can likely be attributed to desorption of arsenic from aquifer sediments saturated in old groundwater with high pH under reducing conditions. The THMs were detected more frequently at USGS grid sites that were wells, part of a large urban water system, and surrounded by urban land use. Solvents, MTBE, and simazine were all detected more frequently at USGS grid sites that were wells with a greater urban percentage of surrounding land use and that accessed older groundwater than other USGS grid sites. Comparison between the observed and predicted detection frequencies of perchlorate at USGS grid sites indicated that anthropogenic sources could have contributed to low levels of perchlorate in the groundwater of the Bear Valley study area. In the Lake Arrowhead Watershed study area, high and moderate RCs of radon-222 and uranium can be attributed to older groundwater from the granitic fractured-rock primary aquifer system. Low RCs of THMs were detected at USGS grid sites that were wells and part of small water systems. The similarities between the observed and predicted detection frequencies of perchlorate in samples from USGS grid sites indicated that the source and distribution of perchlorate were most likely attributable to precipitation (rain and snow), with minimal, if any, contribution from anthropogenic sources.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 34.189937803874194° to 34.30430786623395° latitude; -117.35836029052734° to -116.73110961914061° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Timothy M. Mathany, Carmen A. Burton. 2017-06-20. Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the Bear Valley and Lake Arrowhead Watershed Study Unit, 2010: California GAMA Priority Basin Project. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175043

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗