SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Special Publication”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources

USGS2012

Status of groundwater quality in the California Desert Region, 2006-2008: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in six areas in the California Desert Region (Owens, Antelope, Mojave, Coachella, Colorado River, and Indian Wells) was investigated 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 California State Water Resources Control Board in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The six Desert studies were designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated groundwater in parts of the Desert and the Basin and Range hydrogeologic provinces, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing groundwater quality to other areas in California and across the Nation. Samples were collected by the USGS from September 2006 through April 2008 from 253 wells in Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Two-hundred wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide a spatially unbiased representation of the study areas (grid wells), and fifty-three wells were sampled to provide additional insight into groundwater conditions (additional wells). The status of the current quality of the groundwater resource was assessed based on data from samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and inorganic constituents such as major ions and trace elements. Water-quality data from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database also were incorporated in the assessment. The status assessment is intended to characterize the quality of untreated groundwater resources within the primary aquifer systems of the Desert Region, not the treated drinking water delivered to consumers by water purveyors. The primary aquifer systems (hereinafter, primary aquifers) in the six Desert areas are defined as that part of the aquifer corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the CDPH database. Relative-concentrations (sample concentration divided by the benchmark concentration) were used as the primary metric for evaluating groundwater quality for those constituents that have Federal and (or) California benchmarks. A relative-concentration (RC) greater than (>) 1.0 indicates a concentration above a benchmark, and an RC less than or equal to (≤) 1.0 indicates a concentration equal to or below a benchmark. Organic and special-interest constituent RCs were classified as “low” (RC ≤ 0.1), “moderate” (0.1 < RC ≤ 1.0), or “high” (RC > 1.0). Inorganic constituent RCs were classified as “low” (RC ≤ 0.5), “moderate” (0.5 < RC ≤ 1.0), or “high” (RC > 1.0). A lower threshold value RC was used to distinguish between low and moderate RCs for organic constituents because these constituents are generally less prevalent and have smaller RCs than inorganic constituents. Aquifer-scale proportion was used as the primary metric for evaluating regional-scale groundwater quality. High aquifer-scale proportion was defined as the percentage of the area of the primary aquifers with an RC greater than 1.0 for a particular constituent or class of constituents; percentage is based on an areal rather than a volumetric basis. Moderate and low aquifer-scale proportions were defined as the percentage of the primary aquifers with moderate and low RCs, respectively. Two statistical approaches—grid-based and spatially weighted—were used to evaluate aquifer-scale proportions for individual constituents and classes of constituents. Grid-based and spatially weighted estimates were comparable in the Desert Region (within 90 percent confidence intervals). The status assessment determined that one or more inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks had high RCs in 35.4 percent of the Desert Region’s primary aquifers, moderate RCs in 27.4 percent, and low RCs in 37.2 percent. The inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks having the largest high aquifer-scale proportions were arsenic (17.8 percent), boron (11.4 percent), fluoride (8.9 percent), gross-alpha radioactivity (6.6 percent), molybdenum (5.7 percent), strontium (3.7 percent), vanadium (3.6 percent), uranium (3.2 percent), and perchlorate (2.4 percent). Inorganic constituents with non-health-based benchmarks were also detected at high RCs in 18.6 percent and at moderate RCs in 16.0 percent of the Desert Region’s primary aquifers. In contrast, organic constituents had high RCs in only 0.3 percent of the Desert Region’s primary aquifers, moderate in 2.0 percent, low in 48.0 percent, and were not detected in 49.7 percent of the primary aquifers in the Desert Region. Of 149 organic constituents analyzed for all six study areas, 42 constituents were detected. Six organic constituents, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 1,2-dichloropropane, dieldrin, 1,2-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethene, were found at moderate RCs in one or more of the grid wells. One constituent, N -nitrosodimethylamine, a special-interest VOC, was detected at a high RC in one well. Thirty-nine organic constituents were detected only at low concentrations. Three organic constituents were frequently detected (in more than 10 percent of samples from grid wells): chloroform, simazine, and deethylatrazine.

California↗

USGS2006

FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)

PLEASE NOTE: This now-approved 'FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization (PostScript Implementation)' officially supercedes its earlier (2000) Public Review Draft version (see 'Earlier Versions of the Standard' below). In August 2006, the Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization was officially endorsed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as the national standard for the digital cartographic representation of geologic map features (FGDC Document Number FGDC-STD-013-2006). Presented herein is the PostScript Implementation of the standard, which will enable users to directly apply the symbols in the standard to geologic maps and illustrations prepared in desktop illustration and (or) publishing software. The FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization contains descriptions, examples, cartographic specifications, and notes on usage for a wide variety of symbols that may be used on typical, general-purpose geologic maps and related products such as cross sections. The standard also can be used for different kinds of special-purpose or derivative map products and databases that may be focused on a specific geoscience topic (for example, slope stability) or class of features (for example, a fault map). The standard is scale-independent, meaning that the symbols are appropriate for use with geologic mapping compiled or published at any scale. It will be useful to anyone who either produces or uses geologic map information, whether in analog or digital form. Please be aware that this standard is not intended to be used inflexibly or in a manner that will limit one's ability to communicate the observations and interpretations gained from geologic mapping. In certain situations, a symbol or its usage might need to be modified in order to better represent a particular feature on a geologic map or cross section. This standard allows the use of any symbol that doesn't conflict with others in the standard, provided that it is clearly explained on the map and in the database. In addition, modifying the size, color, and (or) lineweight of an existing symbol to suit the needs of a particular map or output device also is permitted, provided that the modified symbol's appearance is not too similar to another symbol on the map. Be aware, however, that reducing lineweights below .125 mm (.005 inch) may cause symbols to plot incorrectly if output at higher resolutions (1800 dpi or higher). For guidelines on symbol usage, as well as on color design and map labeling, please refer to the standard's introductory text. Also found there are informational sections covering concepts of geologic mapping and some definitions of geologic map features, as well as sections on the newly defined concepts and terminology for the scientific confidence and locational accuracy of geologic map features. More information on both the past development and the future maintenance of the FGDC Digital Cartographic Standard for Geologic Map Symbolization can be found at the FGDC Geologic Data Subcommittee website (http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/fgdc_gds/). Earlier Versions of the Standard

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2013

Satellite images of the September 2013 flood event in Lyons, Colorado

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Special Applications Science Center (SASC) produced an image base map showing high-resolution remotely sensed data over Lyons, Colorado—a city that was severely affected by the flood event that occurred throughout much of the Colorado Front Range in September of 2013. The 0.5-meter WorldView-2 data products were created from imagery collected by DigitalGlobe on September 13 and September 24, 2013, during and following the flood event. The images shown on this map were created to support flood response efforts, specifically for use in determining damage assessment and mitigation decisions. The raw, unprocessed imagery were orthorectified and pan-sharpened to enhance mapping accuracy and spatial resolution, and reproduced onto a cartographic base map. These maps are intended to provide a snapshot representation of post-flood ground conditions, which may be useful to decisionmakers and the general public. The SASC also provided data processing and analysis support for other Colorado flood-affected areas by creating cartographic products, geo-corrected electro-optical and radar image mosaics, and GIS water cover files for use by the Colorado National Guard, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the flood response community. All products for this International Charter event were uploaded to the USGS Hazards Data Distribution System (HDDS) website (http://hdds.usgs.gov/hdds2/) for distribution.

Colorado↗

USGS2013

Groundwater-quality data in the Western San Joaquin Valley study unit, 2010 - Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 2,170-square-mile Western San Joaquin Valley (WSJV) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from March to July 2010, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program's Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The WSJV study unit was the twenty-ninth study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Western San Joaquin Valley study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer system is defined as parts of aquifers corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the WSJV study unit. Groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from the quality in the shallower or deeper water-bearing zones; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the WSJV study unit, groundwater samples were collected from 58 wells in 2 study areas (Delta-Mendota subbasin and Westside subbasin) in Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, and Kings Counties. Thirty-nine of the wells were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), and 19 wells were selected to aid in the understanding of aquifer-system flow and related groundwater-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], low-level fumigants, and pesticides and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), and naturally occurring inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon [DOC], major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], alkalinity, total arsenic and iron [unfiltered] and arsenic, chromium, and iron species [filtered]). Isotopic tracers (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and boron in water, stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in dissolved nitrate, stable isotopes of sulfur in dissolved sulfate, isotopic ratios of strontium in water, stable isotopes of carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon, activities of tritium, and carbon-14 abundance), dissolved standard gases (methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and argon), and dissolved noble gases (argon, helium-4, krypton, neon, and xenon) were measured to help identify sources and ages of sampled groundwater. In total, 245 constituents and 8 water-quality indicators were measured. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, or matrix spikes) were collected at 16 percent of the wells in the WSJV study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data from the groundwater samples. Blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination from sample collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate samples all were within acceptable limits of variability. Matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 87 percent of the compounds. This study did not evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is delivered to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH, and to non-regulatory benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. Most inorganic constituents detected in groundwater samples from the 39 grid wells were detected at concentrations less than health-based benchmarks. Detections of organic and special-interest constituents from grid wells sampled in the WSJV study unit also were less than health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 12 of the 39 grid wells sampled (approximately 31 percent), pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 9 grid wells (approximately 23 percent), and perchlorate was detected in 15 grid wells (approximately 38 percent). Trace elements, major and minor ions, and nutrients were sampled for at 39 grid wells; most concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks. Exceptions include two detections of arsenic greater than the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L), 20 detections of boron greater than the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) of 1,000 μg/L, 2 detections of molybdenum greater than the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) of 40 μg/L, 1 detection of selenium greater than the MCL-US of 50 μg/L, 2 detections of strontium greater than the HAL-US of 4,000 μg/L, and 3 detections of nitrate greater than the MCL-US of 10 μg/L. Results for inorganic constituents with non-health-based benchmarks (iron, manganese, chloride, sulfate, and TDS) showed that iron concentrations greater than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) of 300 μg/L were detected in five grid wells. Manganese concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA of 50 μg/L were detected in 16 grid wells. Chloride concentrations greater than the recommended SMCL-CA benchmark of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L) were detected in 14 grid wells, and concentrations in 5 of these wells also were greater than the upper SMCL-CA benchmark of 500 mg/L. Sulfate concentrations greater than the recommended SMCL-CA benchmark of 250 mg/L were measured in 21 grid wells, and concentrations in 13 of these wells also were greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 500 mg/L. TDS concentrations greater than the SMCL-CA recommended benchmark of 500 mg/L were measured in 36 grid wells, and concentrations in 20 of these wells also were greater than the SMCL-CA upper benchmark of 1,000 mg/L.

California↗

USGS2012

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

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

California↗

USGS1991

Compilation of ground-water level measurements, obtained by the United States Geological Survey in Puerto Rico, 1958-1985

A digital compilation of the groundwater levels in Puerto Rico was prepared as part of the Caribbean Islands Regional Aquifers System Analysis program. Of special interest are the groundwater levels measurements obtained on a routine basis at wells located in the different aquifer regions or aquifer zones. Data from 181 observation wells were entered in the computer data base. The data base includes the following: name, latitude and longitude coordinates, owner, diameter, depth, station identification, local number, aquifer area or region, period of record, construction date, earliest groundwater level reported, and groundwater level fluctuations for various time periods between 1958 and 1985. Data showing conditions under which groundwater level measurements may have been affected by (1) pumping of the well, (2) by a nearby pumping well (3) a specific method by which the groundwater level was determined, (4) whether the well was recently pumped, and (5) when recorded, the lowest water level are also indicated. The summarized information is available in printed format on a yearly basis as part of the Water Resources Data Publication series. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Groundwater-quality data in 12 GAMA study units: Results from the 2006–10 initial sampling period and the 2008–13 trend sampling period, California GAMA Priority Basin Project

The Priority Basin Project (PBP) of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board. From 2004 through 2012, the GAMA-PBP collected samples and assessed the quality of groundwater resources that supply public drinking water in 35 study units across the State. Selected sites in each study unit were sampled again approximately 3 years after initial sampling as part of an assessment of temporal trends in water quality by the GAMA-PBP. Twelve of the study units, initially sampled during 2006–11 (initial sampling period) and sampled a second time during 2008–13 (trend sampling period) to assess temporal trends, are the subject of this report. The initial sampling was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated groundwater used for public water supplies in the 12 study units. In these study units, 550 sampling sites were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized, grid-based method to provide spatially unbiased representation of the areas assessed (grid sites, also called “status sites”). After the initial sampling period, 76 of the previously sampled status sites (approximately 10 percent in each study unit) were randomly selected for trend sampling (“trend sites”). The 12 study units sampled both during the initial sampling and during the trend sampling period were distributed among 6 hydrogeologic provinces: Coastal (Northern and Southern), Transverse Ranges and Selected Peninsular Ranges, Klamath, Modoc Plateau and Cascades, and Sierra Nevada Hydrogeologic Provinces. For the purposes of this trend report, the six hydrogeologic provinces were grouped into two hydrogeologic regions based on location: Coastal and Mountain. The groundwater samples were analyzed for a number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and 1,2,3-trichloropropane), and natural inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements). Isotopic tracers (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water) also were measured to help identify processes affecting groundwater quality and the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. More than 200 constituents and water-quality indicators were measured during the trend sampling period. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, matrix-spikes, and surrogate compounds) were collected at about one-third of the trend sites, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. On the basis of detections in laboratory and field blank samples collected by GAMA-PBP study units, including the 12 study units presented here, reporting levels for some groundwater results were adjusted in this report. Differences between replicate samples were mostly within acceptable ranges, indicating low variability in analytical results. Matrix-spike recoveries were largely within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent). This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater used for drinking water typically is treated, disinfected, and blended with other waters to achieve acceptable water quality. The comparison benchmarks used in this report apply to treated water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. To provide some context for the results, however, concentrations of constituents measured in these groundwater samples were compared with benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. Most organic constituents that were detected in groundwater samples from the trend sites were found at concentrations less than health-based benchmarks. One volatile organic compound—perchloroethene—was detected at a concentration greater than the health-based benchmark in samples from one trend site during the initial and trend sampling periods. Chloroform was detected in at least 10 percent of the samples at trend sites in both sampling periods. Methyl tert -butyl ether was detected in samples from more than 10 percent of the trend sites during the initial sampling period. No pesticide or pesticide degradate was detected in greater than 10 percent of the samples from trend sites or at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks during either sampling period. Nutrients were not detected at concentrations greater than their health-based benchmarks during either sampling period. Most detections of major ions and trace elements in samples from trend sites were less than health-based benchmarks during both sampling periods. Arsenic and boron each were detected at concentrations greater than the health-based benchmark in samples from four trend sites during the initial and trend sampling periods. Molybdenum was detected in samples from four trend sites at concentrations greater than the health-based benchmark during both sampling periods. Samples from two of these trend sites had similar molybdenum concentrations, and two had substantially different concentrations during the initial and trend sampling periods. Uranium was detected at a concentration greater than the health-based benchmark only at two trend sites.

California↗

USGS2013

Groundwater-quality data in the Bear Valley and Selected Hard Rock Areas study unit, 2010: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 112-square-mile Bear Valley and Selected Hard Rock Areas (BEAR) study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from April to August 2010, as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project (PBP). The GAMA-PBP was developed in response to the California Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted in collaboration with the SWRCB and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The BEAR study unit was the thirty-first study unit to be sampled as part of the GAMA-PBP. The GAMA Bear Valley and Selected Hard Rock Areas study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated groundwater quality throughout California. The primary aquifer system is defined as the zones corresponding to the perforation intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the BEAR study unit. Groundwater quality in the primary aquifer system may differ from the quality in the shallow or deep water-bearing zones; shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. In the BEAR study unit, groundwater samples were collected from two study areas (Bear Valley and Selected Hard Rock Areas) in San Bernardino County. Of the 38 sampling sites, 27 were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the primary aquifer system in the study unit (grid sites), and the remaining 11 sites were selected to aid in the understanding of the potential groundwater-quality issues associated with septic tank use and with ski areas in the study unit (understanding sites). The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and wastewater indicator compounds [WICs]), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), and inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon [DOC], major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], alkalinity, and arsenic and iron species), and uranium and other radioactive constituents (radon-222 and activities of tritium and carbon-14). Isotopic tracers (of hydrogen and oxygen in water, of nitrogen and oxygen in dissolved nitrate, of dissolved boron, isotopic ratios of strontium in water, and of carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon) and dissolved noble gases (argon, helium-4, krypton, neon, and xenon) were measured to help identify the sources and ages of sampled groundwater. In total, groundwater samples were analyzed for 289 unique constituents and 8 water-quality indicators in the BEAR study unit. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicate pairs, or matrix spikes) were collected at 13 percent of the sites in the BEAR study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data from the groundwater samples. Blank samples rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, indicating that contamination from sample collection or analysis was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Replicate pair samples all were within acceptable limits of variability. Matrix-spike sample recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for approximately 84 percent of the compounds. This study did not evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers. After withdrawal, groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory benchmarks apply to water that is delivered to the consumer, not to untreated groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based benchmarks established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CDPH, and to non-health-based benchmarks established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and benchmarks for drinking water are for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those benchmarks. All concentrations of organic and special-interest constituents from grid sites sampled in the BEAR study unit were less than health-based benchmarks. In total, VOCs were detected in 17 of the 27 grid sites sampled (approximately 63 percent), pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 4 grid sites (approximately 15 percent), and perchlorate was detected in 21 grid sites (approximately 78 percent). Inorganic constituents (trace elements, major and minor ions, nutrients, and uranium and other radioactive constituents) were sampled for at 27 grid sites; most concentrations were less than health-based benchmarks. Exceptions include one detection of arsenic greater than the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L), three detections of uranium greater than the MCL-US of 30 μg/L, nine detections of radon-222 greater than the proposed MCL-US of 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), and one detection of fluoride greater than the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA) of 2 milligrams per liter. Concentrations of inorganic constituents with non-health-based benchmarks (iron, manganese, chloride, and TDS) were less than the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) in most grid sites. Exceptions include two detections of iron greater than the SMCL-CA of 300 μg/L and one detection of manganese greater than the SMCL-CA of 50 μg/L.

California↗

USGS2014

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

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

California↗

USGS2015

Determinants of public support for threatened and endangered species management: A case study of Cape Lookout National Seashore

Gaining public support for management actions is important to the success of public land management agencies' efforts to protect threatened and endangered species. This is especially relevant at national parks, where managers balance two aspects of their conservation mission: to protect resources and to provide for public enjoyment. This study examined variables potentially associated with support for management actions at Cape Lookout National Seashore, a unit of the National Park Service. Two visitor surveys were conducted at the park at different seasons, and a resident survey was conducted for households in Carteret County, North Carolina, where the park is located. The goal of the project was to provide park managers with information that may help with the development of communication strategies concerning the park's conservation mission. These communication strategies may help to facilitate mutual understanding and garner public support for management actions. Several variables were examined as potential determinants that park managers ought to consider when developing communication strategies. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to examine the relationships between these variables and the likelihood of support for or opposition to management actions. The variables examined included perceived shared values of park resources, general environmental attitudes, level of familiarity with park resources and regulations, knowledge about threatened and endangered species, level of trust in the decision-making process, and perceived shared values with park management. In addition, demographic variables such as income level, respondent age, residency status, and visitor type were also used. The results show that perceived values of threatened and endangered species, trust in park managers and the decision-making process, and perceived share values with park managers were among the strongest indicators of support for management actions. Different user groups also exhibited different levels of support, with groups engaged in specialized recreation activities (fishers) being the most likely to oppose management actions. While our findings are not surprising, they corroborate past research that has shown an effective communications strategy should be customized to target different audiences. In addition, management should focus on developing long-term relationships that build trust in and foster credibility of decision-making processes.

North Carolina↗

USGS2000

Digital mapping techniques '00, workshop proceedings - May 17-20, 2000, Lexington, Kentucky

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '00 (DMT'00) workshop was attended by 99 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 28 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the first three meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a), and in May, 1999, in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999). This year's meeting was hosted by the Kentucky Geological Survey, from May 17 to 20, 2000, on the University of Kentucky campus in Lexington. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model; 4) field data-collection systems; and 5) map citation and authorship guidelines. Four representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The four annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

A multiagency and multijurisdictional approach to mapping the glacial deposits of the Great Lakes region in three dimensions

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), consisting of state geological surveys from all eight Great Lakes states, the Ontario Geological Survey, and the U.S. Geological Survey, was conceived out of a societal need for unbiased and scientifically defensible geologic information on the shallow subsurface, particularly the delineation, interpretation, and viability of groundwater resources. Only a small percentage (<10%) of the region had been mapped in the subsurface, and there was recognition that no single agency had the financial, intellectual, or physical resources to conduct such a massive geologic mapping effort at a detailed scale over a wide jurisdiction. The GLGMC provides a strategy for generating financial and stakeholder support for three-dimensional (3-D) geologic mapping, pooling of physical and personnel resources, and sharing of mapping and technological expertise to characterize the thick cover of glacial sediments. Since its inception in 1997, the GLGMC partners have conducted detailed surficial and 3-D geologic mapping within all jurisdictions, and concurrent significant scientific advancements have been made to increase understanding of the history and framework of geologic processes. More importantly, scientific information has been provided to public policymakers in understandable formats, emphasis has been placed on training early-career scientists in new mapping techniques and emerging technologies, and a successful model has been developed of state/provincial and federal collaboration focused on geologic mapping, as evidenced by this program's unprecedented and long-term successful experiment of 10 geological surveys working together to address common issues.

GSA Special Papers↗

USGS1951

Stratigraphic sections of the Phosphoria formation in Idaho

The first of a series of reports giving detailed stratigraphic sections of the Phosphoria formation in the Western phosphate field as measured and described by the Geological Survey will be released as Circulars within the next few months. Because of the needs of industry for many of these data during the 1951 field season, and in view of the unavoidable delays attendant on publication, the tabular data to be included in these Circulars are hereby placed on open file in simple reproduction form (prepared by Ozalid from photographic negatives) and without explanatory text so that immediate use may be made of the data. The tables include data on sections in four states: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah; and the tables for each of these states are bound together as individual reports. The tables include name and location of section measured, brief description of geologic setting, acknowledgments for field and analytical work, abstract data on the sections (bed number, rock name, sample number, and thickness), and analytical data on the samples. The analytical data include reports on P 2 O 5 and acid insoluble for all samples and additional analyses, such as Al 2 0 3 , Fe 7 0 3 , loss on ignition, F, and V 2 O 5 , for selected samples. Spectrographic analyses for a large number of elements are included samples from selected localities, and special analyses have been made of a few samples. These reports are placed on open file at the offices of the Geological Survey in Washington, D. C., Spokane, Washington, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Montpelier, Idaho, and at the offices of the Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow, Idaho, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte, Montana, and the Wyoming Geological Survey, Laramie, Wyoming, and the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Idaho↗

USGS1963

Publications on fish parasites and diseases, 330 B.C.-A.D

These references were collected in 1924, but until now this collection has been available only in manuscript form. Because of the current increased interest in this field, this bibliography is being issued to make it more generally accessible. They include the earliest known references to fish parasites (330 B.C.) as well as a nearly complete collection up to 1924. In some instances only one or two works of a more prolific researcher are cited, therefore it is recommended that the student use the Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology (U. S. Department of Agriculture) freely. For more current work consult the following, of which Dogiel et al.(1958), Hoffman and Sindermann (1962), Schaperclaus (1954), and Snieszko et aL(in press) have extensive bibliographies:

Special Scientific Report - Fisheries↗

USGS2023

Biodiversity connections—‘ties that bind’

Connectivity is a foundational concept in ecology and conservation and was the organising theme for the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council, a professional organisation dedicated to the study and conservation of freshwater fishes native to the southeast region of the United States (US). We introduce a Special Contribution of six papers selected from presentations at that meeting that illustrate perspectives on connections created by fish migration and dispersal, evolved life histories and habitat affinities and interspecific facilitation. Although focused on streams of the southeast US, each of these topics is broadly relevant to freshwater fish conservation, particularly with respect to causes and consequences of migratory fish depletion, population fragmentation and species declines. Many other connections relevant to the ecology and conservation of freshwater fishes remain relatively unexplored but could substantively advance conservation. We highlight the potential that species evolutionary histories, that is connections through time, reconstructed using species distributions and phylogenies may improve predictions of species responses to environmental change. Identifying species interdependencies, including undiscovered interactions that support survival or reproduction, could provide insights into how species losses may cascade as aquatic communities unravel. Finally, efforts to elucidate diverse connections between people and freshwater biodiversity, particularly where fisheries are historic and streams mostly go unnoticed, may prove essential to building public support for conservation measures. A research agenda anchored on ‘biodiversity connections’ has the potential to advance ecological understanding and public engagement, elements essential to conserving freshwater fishes.

Ecology of Freshwater Fish↗

USGS1951

Stratigraphic sections of the Phosphoria formation in Utah

The first of a series of reports giving detailed stratigraphic sections of the Phosphoria formation in the Western phosphate field as measured and described by the Geological Survey will be released as Circulars within the next few months. Because of the needs of industry for many of these data during the 1951 field season, and in view of the unavoidable delays attendant on publication: the tabular data to be included in these Circulars are hereby placed on open file in simple reproduction form (prepared by Ozalid from photographic negatives) and without explanatory text so that immediate use may be made of the data. The tables include data on sections in four states: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah; and the tables for each of these states are bound together as individual reports. The tables include name and location of section measured, brief description of geologic setting, acknowledgments for field and analytical work, abstract data on the sections (bed number, rock name, sample number, and thickness), and analytical data or the samples. The analytical data include reports on P 2 O 5 and acid insoluble for all samples and additional analyses, such as Al 2 0 3 , Fe 7 0 3 , loss on ignition, F, and V 2 O 5 , for selected samples. Spectrographic analyses for a large number of elements are included for samples from selected localities, and special analyses have been made of a few samples. These reports are placed on open file at the offices of the Geological Survey in Washington, D. C., Spokane, Washington, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Montpelier, Idaho, and at the offices of the Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow, Idaho, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte, Montana, and the Wyoming Geological Survey, Laramie, Wyoming, and the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah↗

USGS1984

Bedrock aquifers in the northern San Rafael Swell area, Utah, with special emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone

This report presents the results of a study of bedrock aquifers in the northern San Rafael Swell area, Utah (fig. 1), with special emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone of Triassic(?) and Jurassic age. The study was made by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights. Fieldwork was done mainly during March 1979-July 1980, with supplemental testing and observations during August-December 1980. The principal objectives of this study were to determine: (1) Well yields of the bedrock formations, (2) the capability of formations to yield, over the long term, water chemically suitable for presently (1980) known uses, and (3) effects of withdrawals from wells on the surface-water supply in the Colorado River Basin.

Utah↗

USGS2005

Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides information to the public and to policy-makers concerning the current use and flow of minerals and materials in the United States economy. The USGS collects, analyzes, and disseminates minerals information on most nonfuel mineral commodities. This USGS digital database is an online compilation of historical U.S. statistics on mineral and material commodities. The database contains information on approximately 90 mineral commodities, including production, imports, exports, and stocks; reported and apparent consumption; and unit value (the real and nominal price in U.S. dollars of a metric ton of apparent consumption). For many of the commodities, data are reported as far back as 1900. Each commodity file includes a document that describes the units of measure, defines terms, and lists USGS contacts for additional information. End-use tables complement these statistics by supplying, for most of these commodities, information about the distribution of apparent consumption. This publication draws on more than 125 years of minerals information experience. At the request of the 47th Congress of the United States (1882; 22 Stat. 329), the U.S. Government began the collection and public distribution of these types of data. The Federal agencies responsible for the collection of the data have changed through time. For the years 1882-1924, the USGS collected and published these data; the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) performed these tasks from 1925-95; and in 1996, the responsibilities once again passed to the USGS (following the closure of the USBM) (Mlynarski, 1998). The USGS collects data on a monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual basis from more than 18,000 minerals-related producer and consumer establishments that cooperate with the USGS. These companies voluntarily complete about 40,000 canvass forms that survey production, consumption, recycling, stocks, shipments, and other essential information. Data are also gathered from site visits, memberships on domestic and international minerals-related committees, and coordination with other government organizations and trade associations. The USGS makes this information available through published products, including monthly, quarterly, and annual Mineral Industry Surveys, the annual Minerals Yearbook (MYB), the annual Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS), and special mineral commodity studies, including the history of metal prices and materials flow studies.

Data Series↗