USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Special Publications”

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

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

At least 379 records · Page 21Linked to original sources
USGS1982

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency: Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee

In December 1967, Bulletin No. 15, "A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies," was issued by the Hydrology Committee of the Water Resources Council. The report recommended use of the Pearson Type III distribution with log transformation of the data (log-Pearson Type III distribution) as a base method for flood flow frequency studies. As pointed out in that report, further studies were needed covering various aspects of flow frequency determinations. In March 1976, Bulletin 17, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency" was issued by the Water Resources Council. The guide was an extension and update of Bulletin No. 15. It provided a more complete guide for flood flow frequency analysis incorporating currently accepted technical methods with sufficient detail to promote uniform application. It was limited to defining flood potentials in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability at locations where a systematic record of peak flood flows is available. The recommended set of procedures was selected from those used or described in the literature prior to 1976, based on studies conducted for this purpose at the Center for Research in Water Resources of the University of Texas at Austin (summarized in Appendix 14) and on studies by the Work Group on Flood Flow Frequency. The "Guidelines" were revised and reissued in June 1977 as Bulletin 17A. Bulletin 17B is the latest effort to improve and expand upon the earlier publications. Bulletin 17B provides revised procedures for weighting a station skew value with the results from a generalized skew study, detecting and treating outliers, making two station comparisons, and computing confidence limits about a frequency curve. The Work Group that prepared this revision did not address the suitability of the original distribution or the generalized skew map. Major problems are encountered when developing guides for flood flow frequency determinations. There is no procedure or set of procedures that can be adopted which, when rigidly applied to the available data, will accurately define the flood potential of any given watershed. Statistical analysis alone will not resolve all flood frequency problems. As discussed in subsequent sections of this guide, elements of risk and uncertainty are inherent in any flood frequency analysis. User decisions must be based on properly applied procedures and proper interpretation of results considering risk and uncertainty. Therefore, the judgment of a professional experienced in hydrologic analysis will enhance the usefulness of a flood frequency analysis and promote appropriate application. It is possible to standarize many elements of flood frequency analysis. This guide describes each major element of the process of defining the flood potential at a specific location in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability. Use is confined to stations where available records are adequate to warrant statistical analysis of the data. Special situations may require other approaches. In those cases where the procedures of this guide are not followed, deviations must be supported by appropriate study and accompanied by a comparison of results using the recommended procedures. As a further means of achieving consistency and improving results, the Work Group recommends that studies be coordinated when more than one analyst is working currently on data for the same location. This recommendation holds particularly when defining exceedance probabilities for rare events, where this guide allows more latitude. Flood records are limited. As more years of record become available at each location, the determination of flood potential may change. Thus, an estimate may be outdated a few years after it is made. Additional flood data alone may be sufficient reason for a fresh assessment of the flood potential. When making a new assessment, the analyst should incorporate in his study a review of earlier estimates. Where differences appear, they should be acknowledged and explained.

Bulletin↗
USGS2008

Ground-water quality data in the Kern County Subbasin study unit, 2006— Results from the California GAMA Program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 3,000 square-mile Kern County Subbasin study unit (KERN) was investigated from January to March, 2006, as part of the Priority Basin Assessment Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Assessment project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Kern County Subbasin study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw (untreated) ground-water quality within KERN, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 50 wells within the San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County. Forty-seven of the wells were selected using a randomized grid-based method to provide a statistical representation of the ground-water resources within the study unit. Three additional wells were sampled to aid in the evaluation of changes in water chemistry along regional ground-water flow paths. The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of man-made organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides, and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon) and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the source and age of the sampled ground water. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and laboratory matrix spikes) were collected and analyzed at approximately 10 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data from the ground-water samples. Assessment of the quality-control information resulted in censoring of less than 0.4 percent of the data collected for ground-water samples. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw ground water typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply, not to the raw ground water, but to treated water that is served to the consumer. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw ground water were compared with health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and as well as with thresholds established for aesthetic concerns (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. VOCs and pesticides each were detected in approximately 60 percent of the grid wells, and detections of all compounds but one were below health-based thresholds. The fumigant, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), was detected above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) in one sample. Detections of most inorganic constituents were also below health-based thresholds. Constituents detected above health-based thresholds include: nitrate, (MCL-US, 2 samples), arsenic (MCL-US, 2 samples), and vanadium (California notification level, NL-CA, 1 sample). All detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds, although nine samples had activities of radon-222 above the lower proposed MCL-US. Most of the samples from KERN wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns.

California↗
USGS2016

Hydrologic analyses in support of the Navajo Generating Station–Kayenta Mine Complex environmental impact statement

Introduction The U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region (Reclamation) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Navajo Generating Station-Kayenta Mine Complex Project (NGS-KMC Project). The proposed project involves various Federal approvals that would facilitate continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) from December 23, 2019 through 2044, and continued operation of the Kayenta Mine and support facilities (collectively called the Kayenta Mine Complex, or KMC) to supply coal to the NGS for this operational period. The EIS will consider several project alternatives that are likely to produce different effects on the Navajo (N) aquifer; the N aquifer is the principal water resource in the Black Mesa area used by the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and Peabody Western Coal Company (PWCC). The N aquifer is composed of three hydraulically connected formations—the Navajo Sandstone, the Kayenta Formation, and the Lukachukai Member of the Wingate Sandstone—that function as a single aquifer. The N aquifer is confined under most of Black Mesa, and the overlying stratigraphy limits recharge to this part of the aquifer. The N aquifer is unconfined in areas surrounding Black Mesa, and most recharge occurs where the Navajo Sandstone is exposed in the area near Shonto, Arizona. Overlying the N aquifer is the D aquifer, which includes the Dakota Sandstone, Morrison Formation, Entrada Sandstone, and Carmel Formation. The aquifer is named for the Dakota Sandstone, which is the primary water-bearing unit. The NGS is located near Page, Arizona on the Navajo Nation. The KMC, which delivers coal to NGS by way of a dedicated electric railroad, is located approximately 83 miles southeast of NGS (about 125 miles northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona). The Kayenta Mine permit area is located on about 44,073 acres of land leased within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations. KMC has been conducting mining and reclamation operations within the Kayenta Mine permit boundary since 1973. The KMC part of the proposed project requires approval by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of a significant revision of the mine’s permit to operate in accordance with the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (Public Law 95-87, 91 Stat. 445 [30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ]) . The revision will identify coal resource areas that may be used to continue extracting coal at the present rate of approximately 8.2 million tons per year. The Kayenta Mine Complex uses water pumped from the D and N aquifers beneath PWCC’s leasehold to support mining and reclamation activities. Prior to 2006, water from the PWCC well field also was used to transport coal by way of a coal-slurry pipeline to the now-closed Mohave Generating Station. Water usage at the leasehold was approximately 4,100 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) during the period the pipeline was in use, and declined to an average 1,255 acre-ft/yr from 2006 to 2011. The Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) section of the mining and reclamation permit must be modified to project the consequences of extended water use by the mine for the duration of the KMC part of the project, including a post-mining reclamation period. Since 1971, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted the Black Mesa Monitoring Program, which consists of monitoring water levels and water quality in the N aquifer, compiling information on water use by PWCC and tribal communities, maintaining several stream-gaging stations, measuring discharge at selected springs, conducting special studies, and reporting findings. These data are useful in evaluating the effects on the N aquifer from PWCC and community pumping, and the effects of variable precipitation. The EIS will assess the impacts of continued pumping on the N aquifer, including changes in storage, water quality, and effects on spring and baseflow discharge, by proposed mining through 2044, and during the reclamation process to 2057. Several groundwater models exist for the area and Reclamation concluded it would conduct a peer review of the groundwater flow model that will be used to assess the direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative effects of future groundwater withdrawals on the D and N aquifers in the Black Mesa area. Reclamation made this determination because of the level of controversy around the effects of continued water use and the comments received from the 2014 draft EIS scoping meetings. Reclamation requested assistance from the USGS in evaluating existing groundwater flow models of the Black Mesa Basin that can be used to predict the effects of different project alternatives on the D and N aquifers.

Arizona↗
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↗
USGS2016

Groundwater-quality data in the Monterey–Salinas shallow aquifer study unit, 2013: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the 3,016-square-mile Monterey–Salinas Shallow Aquifer study unit was investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from October 2012 to May 2013 as part of the California State Water Resources Control Board Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program’s Priority Basin Project. The GAMA Monterey–Salinas Shallow Aquifer study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of untreated-groundwater quality in the shallow-aquifer systems in parts of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of untreated-groundwater quality throughout California. The shallow-aquifer system in the Monterey–Salinas Shallow Aquifer study unit was defined as those parts of the aquifer system shallower than the perforated depth intervals of public-supply wells, which generally corresponds to the part of the aquifer system used by domestic wells. Groundwater quality in the shallow aquifers can differ from the quality in the deeper water-bearing zones; shallow groundwater can be more vulnerable to surficial contamination. Samples were collected from 170 sites that were selected by using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method. The study unit was divided into 4 study areas, each study area was divided into grid cells, and 1 well was sampled in each of the 100 grid cells (grid wells). The grid wells were domestic wells or wells with screen depths similar to those in nearby domestic wells. A greater spatial density of data was achieved in 2 of the study areas by dividing grid cells in those study areas into subcells, and in 70 subcells, samples were collected from exterior faucets at sites where there were domestic wells or wells with screen depths similar to those in nearby domestic wells (shallow-well tap sites). Field water-quality indicators (dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance) were measured, and samples for analysis of inorganic constituents (trace elements, nutrients, major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids, and alkalinity) were collected at all 170 sites. In addition to these constituents, the samples from grid wells were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds, pesticides and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N -nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA), radioactive constituents (radon-222 and gross-alpha and gross-beta radioactivity), and geochemical and age-dating tracers (stable isotopes of carbon in dissolved inorganic carbon, carbon-14 abundances, stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water, and tritium activities). Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at up to 11 percent of the wells in the Monterey–Salinas Shallow Aquifer study unit, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data from the groundwater samples. With the exception of trace elements, blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, indicating that contamination from sample-collection procedures was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Low concentrations of some trace elements were detected in blanks; therefore, the data were re-censored at higher reporting levels. Replicate samples generally were within the limits of acceptable analytical reproducibility. The median values of matrix-spike recoveries were within the acceptable range (70 to 130 percent) for the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and N -nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), but were only approximately 64 percent for pesticides and pesticide degradates. The sample-collection protocols used in this study were designed to obtain representative samples of groundwater. The quality of groundwater can differ from the quality of drinking water because water chemistry can change as a result of contact with plumbing systems or the atmosphere; because of treatment, disinfection, or blending with water from other sources; or some combination of these. Water quality in domestic wells is not regulated in California, however, to provide context for the water-quality data presented in this report, results were compared to benchmarks established for drinking-water quality. The primary comparison benchmarks were maximum contaminant levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California (MCL-US and MCL-CA, respectively). Non-regulatory benchmarks were used for constituents without maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), including Health Based Screening Levels (HBSLs) developed by the USGS and State of California secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL-CA) and notification levels. Most constituents detected in samples from the Monterey–Salinas Shallow Aquifer study unit had concentrations less than their respective benchmarks. Of the 148 organic constituents analyzed in the 100 grid-well samples, 38 were detected, and all concentrations were less than the benchmarks. Volatile organic compounds were detected in 26 of the grid wells, and pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 28 grid wells. The special-interest constituent NDMA was detected above the HBSL in three samples, one of which also had a perchlorate concentration greater than the MCL-CA. Of the inorganic constituents, 6 were detected at concentrations above their respective MCL benchmarks in grid-well samples: arsenic (5 grid wells above the MCL of 10 micrograms per liter, μg/L), selenium (3 grid wells, MCL of 50 μg/L), uranium (4 grid wells, MCL of 30 μg/L), nitrate (16 grid wells, MCL of 10 milligrams per liter, mg/L), adjusted gross alpha particle activity (10 grid wells, MCL of 15 picocuries per liter, pCi/L), and gross beta particle activity (1 grid well, MCL of 50 pCi/L). An additional 4 inorganic constituents were detected at concentrations above their respective HBSL benchmarks in grid-well samples: boron (1 grid well above the HBSL of 6,000 μg/L), manganese (8 grid wells, HBSL of 300 μg/L), molybdenum (6 grid wells, HBSL of 40 μg/L), and strontium (6 grid wells, HBSL of 4,000 μg/L). Of the inorganic constituents, 4 were detected at concentrations above their non-health based SMCL benchmarks in grid-well samples: iron (9 grid wells above the SMCL of 300 μg/L), chloride (7 grid wells, SMCL of 500 mg/L), sulfate (14 grid wells, SMCL of 500 mg/L), and total dissolved solids (27 grid wells, SMCL of 1,000 mg/L). Of the inorganic constituents analyzed in the 70 shallow-well tap sites, 10 were detected at concentrations above the benchmarks. Of the inorganic constituents, 3 were detected at concentrations above their respective MCL benchmarks in shallow-well tap sites: arsenic (2 shallow-well tap sites above the MCL of 10 μg/L), uranium (2 shallow-well tap sites, MCL of 30 μg/L), and nitrate (24 shallow-well tap sites, MCL of 10 mg/L). An additional 3 inorganic constituents were detected above their respective HBSL benchmarks in shallow-well tap sites: manganese (4 shallow-well tap sites above the HBSL of 300 μg/L), molybdenum (4 shallow-well tap sites, HBSL of 40 μg/L), and zinc (2 shallow-well tap sites, HBSL of 2,000 μg/L). Of the inorganic constituents, 4 were detected at concentrations above their non-health based SMCL benchmarks in shallow-well tap sites: iron (6 shallow-well tap sites above the SMCL of 300 μg/L), chloride (1 shallow-well tap site, SMCL of 500 mg/L), sulfate (9 shallow-well tap sites, SMCL of 500 mg/L), and total dissolved solids (15 shallow-well tap sites, SMCL of 1,000 mg/L).

California↗
USGS2015

Conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo—Gold supply chain

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) analyzes mineral and metal supply chains to identify and describe major components of material flows from ore extraction, through intermediate forms, to a final product. Supply chain analyses may be used to identify risks to the United States associated with the supply of critical and strategic minerals and metals and to provide greater supply chain transparency so that policymakers have the fact-based information needed to formulate public policy. This fact sheet focuses on the gold supply chain. The USGS National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) has been asked by governmental and non-governmental organizations to provide information about tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold (collectively known as “3TG minerals” ) processing facilities worldwide in response to U.S. legislation aimed at identifying and removing the supply chain links associated with the trade of these metals and minerals among armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjacent countries. Post-beneficiation processing plants (generally called smelters and refineries) for tantalum, tin, and tungsten (3T) mineral ores and concentrates were identified by company and industry association representatives as being the link in the 3T mineral supply chain through which these minerals can be traced to their source of origin (mine). Tungsten processing plants were the subject of the first fact sheet in a series of USGS reports about 3TG minerals, which was published by the NMIC in August 2014 (Bermúdez-Lugo, 2014). Background information about historical conditions and the voluntary due diligence of multinational stakeholders for minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas is presented in the tungsten fact sheet. The current fact sheet, the fourth and last in the series about 3TG minerals, focuses on the gold supply chain. Processing of the 3T mineral concentrates requires substantial infrastructure and capital and generally is done at relatively few specialized facilities that are not located at the mine site; primary and secondary processors typically are at separate locations. Gold, however, can easily be processed into semi-refined products at or near the mine site and has a high unit value in any form, which allows it to be readily exported through undocumented channels, making it more difficult to track to the mine or region of origin. To put this in perspective, 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of 83 percent pure gold (20 carat) would form a cube measuring 12 centimeters per side (about the size of a small tissue box) and, at a price of $1,200 per ounce, would be worth nearly $1 million. By contrast, the equivalent value of tungsten concentrates would weigh about 45 metric tons (t) (100,000 pounds). Once conflict sourced gold has been combined with gold from other mines and scrap at a refiner, there is no feasible way to distinguish the source of the gold. Thus, once the gold leaves the immediate area of production, it is nearly indistinguishable from gold products mined in other areas.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

Ground-water quality data in the San Fernando-San Gabriel study unit, 2005— Results from the California GAMA program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 460 square mile San Fernando-San Gabriel study unit (SFSG) was investigated between May and July 2005 as part of the Priority Basin Assessment Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Assessment 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 San Fernando-San Gabriel study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground-water quality within SFSG, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 52 wells in Los Angeles County. Thirty-five of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and seventeen wells were selected to aid in the evaluation of specific water-quality issues or changes in water chemistry along a historic ground-water flow path (understanding wells). The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents [volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and pesticide degradates], constituents of special interest [perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), and 1,4-dioxane], naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the source and age of the sampled ground water. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, samples for matrix spikes) were collected at approximately one-fifth (11 of 52) of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the ground-water samples. Assessment of the quality-control results showed that the data had very little bias or variability and resulted in censoring of less than 0.7 percent (32 of 4,484 measurements) of the data collected for ground-water samples. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to treated water that is served to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw ground water were compared with health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic concerns (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. VOCs were detected in more than 90 percent (33 of 35) of grid wells. For all wells sampled for SFSG, nearly all VOC detections were below health-based thresholds, and most were less than one-tenth of the threshold values. Samples from seven wells had at least one detection of PCE, TCE, tetrachloromethane, NDMA, or 1,2,3-TCP at or above a health-based threshold. Pesticides were detected in about 90 percent (31 of 35) grid wells and all detections in samples from SFSG wells were below health-based thresholds. Major ions, trace elements, and nutrients in samples from 17 SFSG wells were all below health-based thresholds, with the exception of one detection of nitrate that was above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). With the exception of 14 samples having radon-222 above the proposed MCL-US, radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds for 16 of the SFSG wells sampled. Total dissolved solids in 6 of the 24 SFSG wells that were sampled ha

California↗
USGS1987

Instream water use in the United States: water laws and methods for determining flow requirements

Water use generally is divided into two primary classes - offstream use and instream use. In offstream use, sometimes called out-of-stream or diversionary use, water is withdrawn (diverted) from a stream or aquifer and transported to the place of use. Examples are irrigated agriculture, municipal water supply, and industrial use. Each of these offstream uses, which decreases the volume of water available downstream from the point of diversion, is discussed in previous articles in this volume. Instream use, which generally does not diminish the flow downstream from its point of use, and its importance are described in this article. One of the earliest instream uses of water in the United States was to turn the water wheels that powered much of the Nation's industry in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although a small volume of water might have been diverted to a mill near streamside, that water usually was returned to the stream near the point of diversion and, thus, the flow was not diminished downstream from the mill. Over time, the generation of hydroelectric power replaced mill wheels as a means of converting water flow into energy. Since the 1920's, the generation of hydroelectric power increasingly has become a major instream use of water. By 1985, more than 3 billion acre-feet of water (3,050,000 million gallons per day) was used annually for hydropower generation (Solley and others, 1988, p. 45)-enough water to cover the State of Colorado to a depth of 51 feet. Navigation is another instream use with a long history. The Lewis and Clark expedition journals and many of Mark Twain's novels illustrate the extent to which the Nation originally depended on adequate streamfiows for basic transportation. Navigation in the 1980's is still considered to be an instream use; however, it often is based upon a stream system that has been modified greatly through channelization, diking, and construction of dams and locks. The present (1987) inland water navigation system in the conterminous United States consists of about 12,000 miles of maintained waterways, over which about 500 million tons of cargo is carried each year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, p. 16). Although not so widely practiced in recent years, streams have been used to dispose of raw waste products from homes, communities, and factories. This use has been discouraged by law and public policy because of public health concerns and the damage it causes to the environment. Beginning in the mid-1960's, other instream uses gained new prominence in the water-resources arena-the assertion of a legal right to a free-flowing stream for biological, recreational, and esthetic purposes. These uses themselves, however, are not new. Riverine habitat always has produced fish, and the beauty of flowing water always has evoked a strong sense of esthetic appreciation. What is new is the emerging legitimacy and awareness of these noneconomic uses under State and Federal laws and regulations. In the past, environmental uses of flowing water were ignored, for the most part, under a long-standing legal tradition that favored offstream uses and certain instream uses that had a strong economic basis. The history of instream-flow policy debate really concerns those recently recognized types of interim uses. Although the more transitional water uses have been protected by law, the recognition of other in stream uses has resulted in substantial changes in State water laws. Although methods for determining the volume of water needed for most traditional water uses are relatively straight-forward and well-established, methods for determining water requirements for the in stream uses have been developed only recently and are continuing to evolve. Water laws that have favored the more traditional water uses, the inherent nature of conflict between instream and offstream water uses, and the special kinds of technological and philosophical problems posed by the "newer" types of instream uses are described below. Water laws that have been passed to accommodate the more recently recognized instream uses are summarized.

Report↗
USGS2008

Ground-water quality data in the middle Sacramento Valley study unit, 2006— Results from the California GAMA program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 3,340 mi 2 Middle Sacramento Valley study unit (MSACV) was investigated from June through September, 2006, as part of the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program. The GAMA Priority Basin Assessment 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 Middle Sacramento Valley study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground-water quality within MSACV, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 108 wells in Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. Seventy-one wells were selected using a randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells), 15 wells were selected to evaluate changes in water chemistry along ground-water flow paths (flow-path wells), and 22 were shallow monitoring wells selected to assess the effects of rice agriculture, a major land use in the study unit, on ground-water chemistry (RICE wells). The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], gasoline oxygenates and degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA], and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, laboratory matrix spikes) were collected at approximately 10 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the ground-water samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for the ground-water samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptably low variability. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most constituents. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to treated water that is served to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw ground water were compared with health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic concerns (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) 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 noncompliance with regulatory thresholds. Most constituents that were detected in ground-water samples were found at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. VOCs were detected in less than one-third and pesticides and pesticide degradates in just over one-half of the grid wells, and all detections of these constituents in samples from all wells of the MSACV study unit were below health-based thresholds. All detections of trace elements in samples from MSACV grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exceptions of arsenic and boron. Arsenic concentrations were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) threshold in eight grid wells, and boron concentrations were above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) in two grid wells. Arsenic was detected above the MCL-US in two flow-path wells. Arsenic, barium, boron, molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium were detected above health-based thresholds in a few of the RICE wells; these wells are not used to supply drinking water. All detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds, although six samples had activities of radon-222 above the lower proposed MCL-US threshold. Most of the samples from the MSACV wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Chloride and sulfate concentrations exceeded SMCL-CA thresholds in two and one grid well, respectively. Iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids concentrations were above the SMCL-CA thresholds in 1, 12, and 6 grid wells, respectively. Nitrate (nitrite plus nitrate, as dissolved nitrogen) concentrations from two grid wells were above the MCL-US threshold. There were no detections of microbial indicators in MSACV.

California↗
USGS2008

Ground-water quality data in the Central Sierra study unit, 2006— Results from the California GAMA Program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 950 square kilometer (370 square mile) Central Sierra study unit (CENSIE) was investigated in May 2006 as part of the Priority Basin Assessment project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Assessment project was developed in response to the Ground-Water 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). This study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw ground water used for drinking-water supplies within CENSIE, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of ground-water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from thirty wells in Madera County. Twenty-seven of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and three were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). Ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], gasoline oxygenates and degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates), constituents of special interest (N-nitrosodimethylamine, perchlorate, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane), naturally occurring inorganic constituents [nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements], radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes [tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon], and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 250 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) were collected at approximately one-sixth of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the ground-water samples. Results from field blanks indicated contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for ground-water samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptably low variability. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most constituents. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw ground water were compared with health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and thresholds established for aesthetic concerns (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. Therefore, any comparisons of the results of this study to drinking-water standards only is for illustrative purposes and is not indicative of compliance or non-compliance to those standards. Most constituents that were detected in ground-water samples were found at concentrations below drinking-water standards or thresholds. Six constituents? fluoride, arsenic, molybdenum, uranium, gross-alpha radioactivity, and radon-222?were detected at concentrations higher than thresholds set for health-based regulatory purposes. Three additional constituents?pH, iron and manganese?were detected at concentrations above thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesticides, were detected in less than one-third of the samples and generally at less than one one-hundredth of a health-based threshold.

California↗
USGS2010

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

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

California↗
USGS1992

U.S. Geological Survey Library classification system

The U.S. Geological Survey library classification system has been designed for an earth science library. It is a tool for assigning classification numbers to earth science and allied pure science library materials in order to collect these materials into related subject groups on the library shelves and arrange them alphabetically by author and title. It can also be used as a retrieval system to access these materials through the subject and visible geographic classification numbers. The classification scheme has been developed over the years since 1904 to meet the ever-changing needs of increased specialization and new areas of study in the earth sciences. This system contains seven schedules: Subject schedule Geological survey schedule Earth science periodical schedule Government documents periodical schedule General science periodical schedule Earth science maps schedule Geographic schedule A geographic number, from the geographic schedule, is distinguished from other numbers in the system in that it is always enclosed in parentheses; for example, (200) is the geographic number for the United States. The geographic number is used in conjunction with the six other previously listed schedules, and it represents slightly different nuances of meanings, in respect to geographic locale, for each schedule. When used with a subject number, the geographic number indicates the country, state, province, or region in which the research was made. The subject number, 203, geology, when combined with the geographic number, (200), for example 203(200), is the classification number for library materials on the geology of the United States. The geographic number, combined with the capital letter G, for example, G(211), is the classification number for an earth science periodical issued by a geological association or university geology department in the State of Maine. When the letter S is combined with a geographic number, for example, S(276), it represents a general science periodical for a university or association in California. When the letter P is combined with a geographic number, for example, P(200), it represents a governmental periodical issued by the United States Federal Government. Geographic numbers standing alone represent classification numbers for the publications of geological surveys; for example, (200) represents publications of the U.S. Geological Survey. Map call numbers have a geographic number preceded by the capital letter M, followed by an abbreviated subject number. For example: M(200)2 where: M = Map (200) = Geographic region of the United States 2 = Abbreviation for the subject number 203— geology. The introduction, which follows this abstract, provides detailed procedures on the construction of complete call numbers for works falling into the framework of the aforesaid classification schedules. The tables following the introduction can be quickly accessed through the use of the newly expanded subject index. The purpose of this publication is to provide the earth science community with a classification and retrieval system for earth science materials, to provide sufficient explanation of its structure and use, and to enable library staff and clientele to classify or access research materials in a library collection.

Bulletin↗
USGS1997

Reports and maps of the Military Geology Unit, 1942-1975

Included here are reports and maps which were prepared in the Military Geology Unit of the U. S. Geological Survey from 1942 through 1975. In addition to the references prepared primarily for military use and listed here, more than 200 reports of more general geologic interest were prepared for publication as Survey bulletins and professional papers and in outside journals. These reports are listed in "Publications of the Geological Survey" and other bibliographies. Military Geology reports generally include basic subjects such as rock types, soils, water resources, landforms and vegetation, as well as interpretive subjects such as suitability of terrain for cross-country movement and for construction of roads and airfields in areas throughout the world. Reports on specific areas range from generalized texts with small scab maps derived from published sources to detailed texts with large-scale maps commonly based on photo-interpretation and, especially for Alaska and western Pacific islands, involving field mapping. Other reports treat topics of interest in military geology without reference to specific areas. A number of reports covering the moon include the first photogeologic map of the near side. Authors are cited for some kinds of reports; however, many intelligence reports were published anonymously. Most of the reports were prepared by teams made up mainly of geologists but commonly including soils scientists, botanists, climatologists and geographers. Nearly all the soil scientists and climatologists were members of the World Soil Geography Unit, Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Manuscripts from this Unit were passed through a common review and other processing, as were the manuscripts originating in the Military Geology office, to be issued under the aegis of the latter. In some instances where it has not been possible to list all authors, names of project supervisors are given. File copies of many of the Military Geology reports prepared since 1975 are kept in the Special Geologic Studies Group, U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, and may be examined there by appropriately cleared persons. Additionally, copies of many of the unclassified studies are in the U.S. Geological Survey Library. Some of the older reports are in the files of the Terrain Analysis Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and other offices within the Corps of Engineers. Most of the reports are out of print and many of the other studies are no longer available.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Promoting synergy in the innovative use of environmental data—Workshop summary

From December 2 to 4, 2015, NatureServe and the U.S. Geological Survey organized and hosted a biodiversity and ecological informatics workshop at the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. The workshop objective was to identify user-driven future directions and areas of collaboration in advanced applications of environmental data applied to forecasting and decision making for the sustainability of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Substantial effort to recruit attendees from diverse Federal, State, and private sector organizations successfully attracted participants from 20 Federal agencies and 48 different institutions in the academic, nonprofit, State government, and commercial sectors; the total number of attendees ranged from 100 to 144 during the 3-day workshop. The first one-half of the workshop was divided into 7 plenary sessions and 3 sets of lightning talk sessions organized by sector, providing 48 oral and visual plenary presentations that shared diverse perspectives on biodiversity and ecological informatics, including original biospatial analyses from 6 graduate student map contest winners. The second one-half of the workshop focused on 10 breakout sessions with participant-driven themes from the environmental data sphere and concluded with an address by the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The workshop was structured to encourage interactivity. About 80–90 percent of attendees provided direct feedback using clicker devices for specific questions related to biodiversity and ecological data uses and needs, and 10 breakout session leaders shared the highlights of their group discussions during the final workshop plenary sessions. Participants were encouraged to use the Twitter hashtag #ShareUrData. Over lunch on day 2 there were 20 simultaneous presentations of tools and apps during a special “Tools Café” session. The 10 participant-defined breakout session topics are listed below: Ecosystem services and ecological indicators Inventory and monitoring Biogeographic map of the Nation Pollinators Invasive species Remote sensing Drivers of agricultural change Citizen science Climate Hydrology and watersheds Numerous common themes that emerged from the workshop include the following: The vital importance of completing foundational environmental datasets that are nationally consistent and are essential to multiple sectors, such as the Soil Survey Geographic database high-resolution soils data, a minimum 5-meter resolution digital elevation model, national hydrographic data, high-resolution land cover data, time series high-resolution spatial climate data from historical to future time steps, and a national wetland inventory. Improved, nationally consistent environmental datasets (integrated with targeted observations) will dramatically advance forecasting capacity and support early warning systems (that is, drought, forest disease); however, multiagency coordination should focus on decision support tools that convey appropriate actions and responses to adapt to, and mitigate, potential negative consequences. Digitizing and providing access to the vast stores of underused historical data that can be leveraged for this purpose is of national importance. Modern computational techniques and the ever-increasing flow of environmental data from ground and remote observations can support improved understanding of environmental change. Success of understanding patterns of change for decision making requires establishing baselines from which change can be measured. The value of digitized historical data is greater than ever before. There is a need to recognize the multifaceted potential of citizen science to engage the public in resource stewardship, to create the next generation of science, technology, engineering, math, and environmental leaders, and to have sufficient field personnel to monitor environmental trends, including early detection of alien invasive species, phenological shifts, shifting distribution and abundance of indicator species, and species inventories. The Federal government has an essential role in creating the infrastructure to dramatically improve mobilization of citizen science (and other) data by fostering the following: creation of data standards, creation of nationally consistent framework datasets, vertical integration of observation data, visualization and dissemination of aggregated datasets, and calculation and communication of derived trends. Current and near future trends in the availability of remotely sensed data (rapid expansion of satellite fleets and drones) is revolutionizing access to near-real-time ecological data. Targeted integration with ground-based observations and instrumentation has an extremely valuable role in validating remotely sensed data, filling data gaps, improving data quality, and fully realizing the potential of the near-real-time monitoring of environmental indicator trends. Integrated management of environmental data at the landscape scale is required even as specific actions on the ground are largely local in nature. The workshop highlighted numerous success stories; however, almost every breakout group pointed out the still-too-fragmented nature of the current data landscape. Management and delivery of the necessary data, tools, and analyses to sustain our Nation’s environmental capital must be a collaborative effort between Federal, State, and local governments, academia, nonprofits, and the commercial sector, even though the responsibilities of each sector are different.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the San Diego Drainages Hydrogeologic Province, 2004: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

Groundwater quality in the approximately 3,900-square-mile (mi 2 ) San Diego Drainages Hydrogeologic Province (hereinafter San Diego) study unit was investigated from May through July 2004 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The study unit is located in southwestern California in the counties of San Diego, Riverside, and Orange. The GAMA Priority Basin Project is being conducted by the California State Water Resources Control Board in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The GAMA San Diego study was designed to provide a statistically robust assessment of untreated-groundwater quality within the primary aquifer systems. The assessment is based on water-quality and ancillary data collected by the USGS from 58 wells in 2004 and water-quality data from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database. The primary aquifer systems (hereinafter referred to as the primary aquifers) were defined by the depth interval of the wells listed in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database for the San Diego study unit. The San Diego study unit consisted of four study areas: Temecula Valley (140 mi 2 ), Warner Valley (34 mi 2 ), Alluvial Basins (166 mi 2 ), and Hard Rock (850 mi 2 ). The quality of groundwater in shallow or deep water-bearing zones may differ from that in the primary aquifers. For example, shallow groundwater may be more vulnerable to surficial contamination than groundwater in deep water-bearing zones. This study had two components: the status assessment and the understanding assessment. The first component of this study-the status assessment of the current quality of the groundwater resource-was assessed by using data from samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC), pesticides, and naturally occurring inorganic constituents, such as major ions and trace elements. The status assessment is intended to characterize the quality of groundwater resources within the primary aquifers of the San Diego study unit, not the treated drinking water delivered to consumers by water purveyors. The second component of this study-the understanding assessment-identified the natural and human factors that affect groundwater quality by evaluating land use, well construction, and geochemical conditions of the aquifer. Results from these evaluations were used to help explain the occurrence and distribution of selected constituents in the study unit. Relative-concentrations (sample concentration divided by benchmark concentration) were used as the primary metric for relating concentrations of constituents in groundwater samples to water-quality benchmarks for those constituents that have Federal and (or) California benchmarks. For organic and special-interest constituents, relative-concentrations were classified as high (> 1.0), moderate (> 0.1 and &le;1.0), and low (&le;0.1). For inorganic constituents, relative concentrations were classified as high (> 1.0), moderate (> 0.5 and &le;1.0), and low (&le;0.5). Grid-based and spatially weighted approaches were then used to evaluate the proportion of the primary aquifers (aquifer-scale proportions) with high, moderate, and low relative-concentrations for individual compounds and classes of constituents. One or more of the inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks were high (relative to those benchmarks) in 17.6 percent of the primary aquifers in the Temecula Valley, Warner Valley, and Alluvial Basins study areas (hereinafter also collectively referred to as the Alluvial Fill study areas because they are composed of alluvial fill aquifers), and in 25.0 percent of the Hard Rock study area. Inorganic constituents with health-based benchmarks that were frequently detected at high relative-concentrations included vanadium (V), arsenic (As), and boron (B). Vanadium and As concentrations were not significantly correlated to either urban or agricultural land use indicating natural sources as the primary contributors of these constituents to groundwater. The positive correlation of B concentration to urban land-use was significant which indicates that anthropogenic activities are a contributing source of B to groundwater. The correlation of V, As and B concentrations to pH was positive, indicating that in alkaline groundwater these constituents are being desorbed from, or being inhibited from adsorbing to, particle surfaces. Inorganic constituents with aesthetic benchmarks that were detected at high relative-concentrations include manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), and total dissolved solids (TDS). In the Alluvial Fill study areas, Mn and TDS were detected at high relative-concentrations in 13.7 percent of the primary aquifers, and Fe in 6.9 percent. In the Hard Rock study area, Mn was detected at high relative-concentrations in 33.3 percent of the primary aquifers, and TDS in 16.7 percent; Fe was not detected at high relative-concentrations. Total dissolved solids concentrations were significantly correlated to agricultural land use suggesting that agricultural practices are a contributing source of TDS to groundwater. Manganese and Fe concentrations were highest in groundwater with low dissolved oxygen and pH indicating that the reductive dissolution of oxyhydroxides may be an important mechanism for the mobilization of Mn and Fe in groundwater. TDS concentrations were highest in shallow wells and in modern (< 50 yrs) groundwater which indicates anthropogenic activities as a source of TDS concentrations in groundwater. The relative-concentrations of organic constituents with health-based benchmarks were high in 3.0 percent of the primary aquifers in the Alluvial Fill study areas. A single detection in the Alluvial Basins study area of the discontinued gasoline oxygenate methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) was the only organic constituent detected at a high relative-concentration; high relative-concentrations of these constituents were not detected in the Hard Rock study area. Twelve of 88 VOCs and 14 of 123 pesticides and pesticide degradates analyzed in grid wells were detected. Chloroform was the only VOC detected in more than 10 percent of the grid wells. The herbicides simazine, atrazine, and prometon were each detected in greater than 10 percent of the grid wells. Perchlorate was detected in 22 percent of the grid wells sampled. The understanding assessment showed a significant correlation of trihalomethanes (THMs) and solvents to urban land-use, indicating that detections of these constituents are more likely to occur in groundwater underlying urbanized areas of the study unit. MTBE concentrations were negatively correlated to the distance from the nearest leaking underground fuel tank, indicating that point sources are the most significant contributing factor for MTBE concentrations to groundwater in the study unit. The positive correlation of THM and herbicide concentrations to modern groundwater was significant, as was the negative correlation of herbicide concentrations to pH and anoxic groundwater. The negative correlation of herbicides to pH and anoxic groundwater was likely due to the fact that these constituents were detected more frequently in shallow wells where groundwater conditions tend to be oxic with relatively low pH.

California↗
USGS2009

Ground-water quality data in the San Francisco Bay study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 620-square-mile San Francisco Bay study unit (SFBAY) was investigated from April through June 2007 as part of the Priority Basin project of the Ground-Water 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 raw ground-water quality, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples in SFBAY were collected from 79 wells in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties. Forty-three of the wells sampled were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells). Thirty-six wells were sampled to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and potential wastewater-indicator compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, trace elements, chloride and bromide isotopes, and uranium and strontium isotopes), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14 isotopes, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, boron, and carbon), and dissolved noble gases (noble gases were analyzed in collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) also were measured to help identify the source and age of the sampled ground water. Quality-control samples (blank samples, replicate samples, matrix spike samples) were collected for approximately one-third of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the ground-water samples. Assessment of the quality-control information from the field blanks resulted in applying “V” codes to approximately 0.1 percent of the data collected for ground-water samples (meaning a constituent was detected in blanks as well as the corresponding environmental data). See the Appendix section “Quality-Control-Sample Results.” This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to treated water that is delivered to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw 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 concerns (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. VOCs were detected in about one-half of the grid wells, while pesticides were detected in about one-fifth of the grid wells. Concentrations of all VOCs and pesticides detected in samples from all SFBAY wells were below health-based thresholds. No pharmaceutical compounds were detected in any SFBAY well. One potential wastewater-indicator compound, caffeine, was detected in one grid well in SFBAY. Concentrations of most trace elements and nutrients detected in samples from all SFBAY wells were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include nitrate, detected above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) in 3samples; arsenic, above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) in 3 samples; cadmium, above the MCL-US in 1 sample; boron, above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) in 2 samples; and strontium, above the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) in 2 samples. The radioactive constituent radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US in two grid wells, but no wells had detections above the proposed alternative MCL-US. Most of the samples from all SFBAY wells had concentrations of major ions, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Six or fewer samples contained chloride, sulfate, or iron at concentrations above the SMCL-CA thresholds. No microbial indicators were detected in SFBAY grid wells.

California↗
USGS2018

Water use in Louisiana, 2015

In 2015, approximately 8,720 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of water was withdrawn from groundwater and surface-water sources in Louisiana, a 2.6 percent increase from 2010. Total groundwater withdrawals were about 1,750 Mgal/d, an increase of 12 percent from 2010, and total surface-water withdrawals were about 6,970 Mgal/d, an increase of 0.44 percent from 2010 to 2015. Total water withdrawals, in Mgal/d, in 2015 for the various categories of use were as follows: public supply—715, industry—2,155, power generation—4,265, rural domestic—39, livestock—6, rice irrigation—825, general irrigation—225, and aquaculture—490. From 2010 to 2015, Louisiana’s total withdrawals for public supply decreased by 3.4 percent, industry increased by 5.7 percent, power generation decreased by 3.9 percent, rural domestic decreased by 4.1 percent, livestock decreased by 21 percent, rice irrigation increased by 20 percent, general irrigation decreased by 6.0 percent, and aquaculture increased by 58 percent. About 48 percent (approximately 850 Mgal/d) of all groundwater withdrawn was from the Chicot aquifer system and 22 percent (approximately 385 Mgal/d) was withdrawn from the Mississippi River alluvial aquifer. Since 2010, withdrawals from the Chicot aquifer system increased by 30 percent and withdrawals from the Mississippi River alluvial aquifer decreased by 2.9 percent. About 70 percent (4,905 Mgal/d) of all surface water withdrawn was from the Mississippi River mainstem. This value represents a 1.1-percent decrease in withdrawals from 2010 to 2015. All water-withdrawal and water-use data presented in this report should be considered estimates. Because of rounding, totals and percentages presented in the tables, figures, and text in the report may differ slightly from totals or percentages calculated individually

Louisiana↗
USGS2016

U.S. Geological Survey science for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative—2015 annual report

This is the eighth annual report highlighting U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science and decision-support activities conducted for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI). The activities address specific management needs identified by WLCI partner agencies. In 2015, USGS scientists continued 24 WLCI projects in 5 categories: (1) acquiring and analyzing resource-condition data to form a foundation for understanding and monitoring landscape conditions and projecting changes; (2) using new technologies to improve the scope and accuracy of landscape-scale monitoring and assessments, and applying them to monitor indicators of ecosystem conditions and the effectiveness of on-the-ground habitat projects; (3) conducting research to elucidate the mechanisms that drive wildlife and habitat responses to changing land uses; (4) managing and making accessible the large number of databases, maps, and other products being developed; and (5) coordinating efforts among WLCI partners, helping them to use USGS-developed decision-support tools, and integrating WLCI outcomes with future habitat enhancement and research projects. Of the 24 projects, 21 were ongoing, including those that entered new phases or more in-depth lines of inquiry, 2 were new, and 1 was completed. A highlight of 2015 was the WLCI science conference sponsored by the USGS, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service in coordination with the Wyoming chapter of The Wildlife Society. Of 260 participants, 41 were USGS professionals representing 13 USGS science centers, field offices, and Cooperative Wildlife Research Units. Major themes of USGS presentations included using new technologies for developing more efficient research protocols for modeling and monitoring natural resources, researching effects of energy development and other land uses on wildlife species and habitats of concern, and modeling species distributions, population trends, habitat use, and effects of land-use changes. There was also a special session on the effectiveness of Wyoming’s Sage-Grouse Executive Order. Combined, USGS presentations provided WLCI partners with a wealth of information and conservation tools. The project completed in 2015 yielded an index of important agricultural lands in the WLCI region. The index improves upon existing measures of agricultural productivity and provides planners and managers with additional values to consider when making decisions about land use and conservation actions. The two new projects include an analysis of satellite imagery to quantify sagebrush productivity and mortality, and an evaluation of how groundwater and small streams interact in the upper Green River Basin. Initiated in response to concern among WLCI partners that large areas of sagebrush appear to have died recently, the sagebrush study objectives are to assess effects of these mortality events on overall sagebrush ecosystem productivity, evaluate the feasibility of using satellite imagery to detect patterns in sagebrush mortality over time, and identify factors driving these mortality events. The groundwater-streamflow interaction study is being conducted by hydrologists and fish ecologists to better understand how groundwater-streamflow interactions are affected by energy-resource development and how native fish communities are affected by these factors. Expected outcomes of both new projects will provide WLCI partners with additional information and decision-support tools. Highlights of ongoing science foundation activities included simulations of nine alternative build-out scenarios for oil and gas development and an associated online fact sheet that explains how the simulations were conducted, with an applied example for the Atlantic Rim. Also completed in 2015 was an update of the USGS online inventory of mineral resources data, and publication of a USGS uranium resource survey for the WLCI region. Combined, the outcomes of this work provide decisionmakers and managers with important baseline information for existing and (or) future planning and monitoring efforts. Terrestrial monitoring activities in 2015 emphasized the use of satellite data in combination with other technologies and field data to monitor, assess, and (or) forecast distribution patterns and (or) trends in sagebrush ecosystems, seasonal and migration stopover habitats used by mule deer and elk, and semi-arid aspen woodlands. Several professional papers detailing new monitoring models and results have been published. Combined, this and related work will help managers understand distribution patterns and trends among priority habitats, identify areas in need of restoration or conservation, and monitor the effectiveness of habitat-management actions. Aquatic monitoring activities entailed not only the new groundwater-streamflow interaction study already mentioned, but also continued monitoring with streamgages paired with nearby wells in the Green River Basin to assess groundwater effects on streamflow and surface water temperatures. A map that portrays groundwater levels and general direction of flow in the Green River Basin was published as well . Overall, outcomes of USGS hydrological research and monitoring will inform WLCI partners about water resources in the WLCI region and help to explain fish-community responses to energy-resource development. In 2015, USGS terrestrial wildlife ecologists continued to make crucial strides towards better understanding wildlife species responses to energy-resource development and other land-use changes. This body of research includes six taxa that require or heavily depend on sagebrush habitats: sage-grouse, pygmy rabbits, 3 songbird species, and mule deer. Native fish communities are also being evaluated. Approaches include modeling and mapping wildlife species distributions, abundances, and trends; using satellite and other technologies to track wildlife seasonal movements; conducting successive phases of research that build on the knowledge gained through prior phases to reveal the specific factors or thresholds that drive population- or individual-level responses to changes; and conducting population viability analyses. Additionally, wildlife habitat association models for pygmy rabbit and sage-grouse were combined with the oil and gas build-out scenarios to project species responses to alternative energy development scenarios. Outcomes of the wildlife response research are helping decisionmakers and managers identify specific factors that contribute to species population trends, the potential for spatial overlap between important wildlife habitats and proposed energy-resource development, locations of priority habitats for restoration and conservation, and more. Data and WLCI Web site management highlights of 2015 included not only ongoing software upgrades, but also an update of the datasets displayed in two of the online products developed for the WLCI effort: (1) a map of 15,532 oil and natural gas well pad scars and other features associated with oil and gas extraction, and (2) a map of oil and gas, oil shale, uranium, and solar energy production, both for southwestern Wyoming. In addition, a map viewer was developed for a previously published map of coal and wind production in relation to sage-grouse distribution and core management areas in southwestern Wyoming. Combined, these maps place valuable decision-support tools in the hands of WLCI partners. The USGS coordination efforts on behalf of the WLCI in 2015 included significant work on planning and executing the WLCI science conference. They also included ongoing efforts to support Local Project Development Teams and the WLCI Coordination Team (CT) with developing conservation priorities and strategies, identifying priority areas for future conservation actions, supporting the evaluation and ranking of conservation projects, and evaluating the ways in which proposed habitat projects relate to WLCI priorities. In 2015, the USGS also assisted the WLCI CT with updating the WLCI Conservation Action Plan.

Wyoming↗