Evaluation of the characteristics, discharge, and water quality of selected springs at Fort Irwin National Training Center, San Bernardino County, California

Jill N. Densmore; Drew C. Thayer; Meghan C. Dick; Peter W. Swarzenski; Lyndsay B. Ball; Celia Z. Rosecrans; Cordell Johnson

doi:10.3133/sir20235142

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20235142

Evaluation of the characteristics, discharge, and water quality of selected springs at Fort Irwin National Training Center, San Bernardino County, California

Jill N. Densmore·Drew C. Thayer·Meghan C. Dick·Peter W. Swarzenski·Lyndsay B. Ball·Celia Z. Rosecrans·Cordell Johnson

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Eight springs and seeps at Fort Irwin National Training Center were described and categorized by their general characteristics, discharge, geophysical properties, and water quality between 2015 and 2017. The data collected establish a modern (2017) baseline of hydrologic conditions at the springs. Two types of springs were identified: (1) precipitation-fed upland springs (Cave, Desert King, Devouge, No Name, and Panther Springs) and (2) groundwater discharge-fed basin springs (Garlic, Bitter, and Jack Springs). Comparison of electrical resistivity tomography data collected at groundwater basin springs from 2015 to 2017 indicated that spring discharge and connection to the underlying groundwater system is highly focused, although the springs themselves appear diffuse and are spread out over a large area. Spring discharge was consistently less than reported by Thompson (1929), except at Garlic Spring where discharges and vegetation have increased in recent years. Multiple discrete flume and seepage meter measurements taken between October 2015 and April 2016 indicated that discharge changed predictably on diurnal and seasonal timescales in response to evapotranspiration. These preliminary results and the lush vegetation noted at some of the springs, particularly at Bitter, Garlic, and Jack Springs, indicated plant evapotranspiration accounts for a substantial part of the discharge from these springs. The quality of water ranges from fresh in precipitation-fed upland springs (Cave, Desert King, Devouge, and Panther Springs) to slightly saline (Garlic and Jack Springs) and moderately saline (Bitter Spring) in groundwater-fed discharge springs. Nitrate concentrations from water at most of the springs were less than 3 milligrams per liter, except for samples from Devouge and Desert King Springs and one sample from Jack Spring. An analysis of delta nitrogen-15 in nitrate (δ 15 N-NO 3 ) and delta oxygen-18 in nitrate (δ 18 O-NO 3 ) indicates high nitrate concentrations in excess of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level at Jack Spring and Desert King Spring resulting from the dissolution of nitrate-bearing caliche deposits; nitrate concentrations at Devouge Spring are a result of algal growth within the spring, and the source of nitrate concentrations in Garlic Spring are consistent with a treated wastewater origin from Langford Valley-Irwin subbasin upgradient. The source of water in upland springs, indicated by values of delta oxygen-18 (δ 18 O) and delta deuterium (δD) are consistent with recharge from winter precipitation. In groundwater basin springs, values of δ 18 O and δD are consistent with groundwater sampled from nearby wells. Summer monsoonal precipitation appears to contribute little water to spring flow. Most springs contain low levels of tritium and appear to be primarily older (pre-1950s) groundwater. Groundwater basin springs with detectable tritium may result from occasional streamflow in nearby washes. These springs could be susceptible to decreases in flow during extended dry periods when the localized recharge may be reduced due to the loss of focused recharge through nearby washes. Groundwater samples from Garlic and Bitter Springs contained arsenic concentrations above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Groundwater samples from all springs, except Cave, Desert King, and Devouge Springs, exceeded the State of California maximum contaminant level for fluoride. Garlic Spring was the only sampled spring that contained vanadium concentrations that exceeded the State of California notification level. Only a single water sample from Jack Spring contained uranium at a concentration that exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Many other constituents of concern were analyzed, including those from anthropogenic sources that may be a result of military activities. Most of these constituents were not detected above their respective reporting levels in spring water; only 15 were detected in spring waters. Diesel and gasoline degradants, many of which also occur naturally, were the most commonly detected compounds. Several other organic compounds, primarily solvents or their degradants, were detected in groundwater basin springs. These constituents, in order of decreasing detection frequency, were carbon disulfide; perchlorate; mercury; acetone; methylnaphthalene; toluene; methyl ethyl ketone; cyanide; and styrene; 4-iso-propyl-toluene; isopropylbenzene; methyl salicylate; and phenol. Except for Garlic Spring, which is affected by discharges of treated wastewater, the quality of water from most springs appears to be relatively unaffected by activities at the Fort Irwin National Training Center.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 34.68622540325404° to 36.01045506303355° latitude; -117.65077467771744° to -115.49481045780325° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jill N. Densmore, Drew C. Thayer, Meghan C. Dick, Peter W. Swarzenski, Lyndsay B. Ball, Celia Z. Rosecrans, Cordell Johnson. 2024-03-29. Evaluation of the characteristics, discharge, and water quality of selected springs at Fort Irwin National Training Center, San Bernardino County, California. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20235142

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗