SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Publications of the US Geological Survey”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

USGS2008

Ground-water quality data in the southeast San Joaquin Valley, 2005–2006— Results from the California GAMA program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 3,800 square-mile Southeast San Joaquin Valley study unit (SESJ) was investigated from October 2005 through February 2006 as part of the Priority Basin Assessment Project of Ground-Water Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Statewide Basin Assessment project was developed in response to the Ground-Water 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 SESJ study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground-water quality within SESJ, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 99 wells in Fresno, Tulare, and Kings Counties, 83 of which were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 16 of which were sampled to evaluate changes in water chemistry along ground-water flow paths or across alluvial fans (understanding wells). The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine, 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 source and age of the sampled ground water. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, samples for 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. Assessment of the quality-control data resulted in censoring of less than 1 percent of the detections of constituents measured in ground-water samples. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of drinking water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain acceptable drinking-water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to the 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 regulatory and other health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Two VOCs were detected above health-based thresholds: 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), and benzene. DBCP was detected above the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) in three grid wells and five understanding wells. Benzene was detected above the CDPH’s maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA) in one grid well. All pesticide detections were below health-based thresholds. Perchlorate was detected above its maximum contaminate level for California in one grid well. Nitrate was detected above the MCL-US in six samples from understanding wells, of which one was a public supply well. Two trace elements were detected above MCLs-US: arsenic and uranium. Arsenic was detected above the MCL-US in four grid wells and two understanding wells; uranium was detected above the MCL-US in one grid well and one understanding well. Gross alpha radiation was detected above MCLs-US in five samples; four of them understanding wells, and uranium isotope activity was greater than the MCL-US for one understanding well. Radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US in all wells sampled. Total coliforms were detected in two wells and somatic coliphage was detected in one well.

California↗

USGS2026

Development of a two-stage lifecycle model to inform the trap-and-haul program for Oncorhynchus kisutch (coho salmon) in the Lewis River, Washington

Restoration of salmon populations in the upper Lewis River Basin, Washington, depends on a trap-and-haul program owing to the Lewis River Hydroelectric Project (hereinafter referred to as “Project”) operated by PacifiCorp and Cowlitz Public Utilities District (hereinafter referred to as “Utilities”), which has been a barrier to salmon passage since the 1930s. Thus, sustaining the Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum, 1792; coho salmon) population upstream from the Project currently depends on two fundamental factors: (1) the collection of upstream migrating adult coho salmon at Merwin Dam, the lowermost dam within the Project, and transporting them by truck to spawn above Swift Dam, the uppermost dam within the Project; and (2) the collection of out-migrating juvenile coho salmon at the downstream collection facility at Swift Dam for transport and release below the Project. The reintroduction program began once the downstream collection facility at Swift Dam was commissioned in late 2012, with the first year of transport data being collected in 2013. Over the past decade, the Utilities have been collecting data on juvenile outmigrants and adult fish returns at the dams. The need to construct a lifecycle model for Lewis River anadromous fish was identified by the Lewis River Aquatic Technical Subgroup, with the understanding that many years (more than 15 years) of data collection are needed to adequately measure the lifecycle production of salmon. The U.S. Geological Survey was contracted to develop and apply the model to past data at the Lewis River dams to help inform future data collection and provide a framework that can be updated annually to measure trap-and-haul program performance within a lifecycle context. Because coho salmon can live as long as 5 years, estimating demographic parameters for coho salmon populations over their lifecycle requires at least 10 or more years of data collection. Over the past decade, PacifiCorp has been collecting data on fish collection efficiency and the numbers of adult and juvenile salmon transported around the Lewis River dams, making this an ideal time to formulate a lifecycle model that can guide future data collection efforts and provide preliminary information to resource managers. The goal of the statistical lifecycle model is to estimate annual production and survival during two critical life-stage transitions: (1) the freshwater production from escapement of adults released upstream from Swift Dam, and the collection of downstream migrating juveniles at the downstream passage facility at Swift Dam; and (2) the smolt-to-adult survival from the time of collection at Swift Dam to their return as adults. We used the Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment model to estimate juvenile production from the number of spawners (Beverton and Holt, 1957). This approach allowed us to test for density dependence at current spawner abundances while estimating annual productivity, defined as the number of juveniles produced per spawner at low spawner abundance. Productivity was then expressed as a function of the number of juveniles collected and transported downstream from the Project. Because juvenile fish collection efficiency (FCE) directly affects the number of juveniles that survive to continue downstream migration, FCE is a primary determinant of fish production. Consequently, the modeling framework is well suited to evaluate the performance of trap-and-haul programs within a lifecycle context. The objectives of this study were to (1) gather and collate available data on adult and juvenile coho salmon at Merwin and Swift Dams; (2) quantify adult escapement, juvenile abundance, and the age at outmigration and adult return; (3) describe, formulate and fit the integrated population model to the data; and (4) summarize our findings, identify data gaps, and identify opportunities for future studies that could improve model estimation and inference. Our key findings were: (1) over and above the number of spawning females, FCE was the primary factor affecting productivity of coho salmon above Swift Dam; (2) smolt-to-adult return (SAR) rates were relatively high considering that harvest was included in the estimate, averaging about 4.5 percent and ranging as high as 12.9 percent; and (3) juvenile capacity upstream from Swift Dam was difficult to estimate due to the limited range in spawning females over the time series of data, suggesting the model may be improved by collecting data at higher spawner abundances. In addition, by including FCE in the model, we estimated that the median pre-collection productivity, defined as the number of juveniles produced per spawner when FCE=1, was 64 juveniles per spawner. Because the two-stage lifecycle model partitions factors that affect fish production in rivers versus the ocean, the model estimates may help inform fishery managers about the overall role that fish collection at Swift Dam plays in the recovery and sustainability of Lewis River coho salmon. By providing the model with (1) more years of data, (2) higher numbers of spawning females, and (3) data on age at juvenile migration in relation to age at adult return, greater certainty in the estimates of capacity and SAR can be attained. Ultimately, information provided by the model may assist in the evaluation and continued improvement of the current trap-and-haul program to support anadromous fishes in the Lewis River Basin.

Washington↗

USGS2011

The story of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory -- A remarkable first 100 years of tracking eruptions and earthquakes

The year 2012 marks the centennial of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO). With the support and cooperation of visionaries, financiers, scientists, and other individuals and organizations, HVO has successfully achieved 100 years of continuous monitoring of Hawaiian volcanoes. As we celebrate this milestone anniversary, we express our sincere mahalo—thanks—to the people who have contributed to and participated in HVO’s mission during this past century. First and foremost, we owe a debt of gratitude to the late Thomas A. Jaggar, Jr., the geologist whose vision and efforts led to the founding of HVO. We also acknowledge the pioneering contributions of the late Frank A. Perret, who began the continuous monitoring of Kīlauea in 1911, setting the stage for Jaggar, who took over the work in 1912. Initial support for HVO was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Carnegie Geophysical Laboratory, which financed the initial cache of volcano monitoring instruments and Perret’s work in 1911. The Hawaiian Volcano Research Association, a group of Honolulu businessmen organized by Lorrin A. Thurston, also provided essential funding for HVO’s daily operations starting in mid-1912 and continuing for several decades. Since HVO’s beginning, the University of Hawaiʻi (UH), called the College of Hawaii until 1920, has been an advocate of HVO’s scientific studies. We have benefited from collaborations with UH scientists at both the Hilo and Mänoa campuses and look forward to future cooperative efforts to better understand how Hawaiian volcanoes work. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated HVO continuously since 1947. Before then, HVO was under the administration of various Federal agencies—the U.S. Weather Bureau, at the time part of the Department of Agriculture, from 1919 to 1924; the USGS, which first managed HVO from 1924 to 1935; and the National Park Service from 1935 to 1947. For 76 of its first 100 years, HVO has been part of the USGS, the Nation’s premier Earth science agency. It currently operates under the direction of the USGS Volcano Science Center, which now supports five volcano observatories covering six U.S. areas—Hawaiʻi (HVO), Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands (Alaska Volcano Observatory), Washington and Oregon (Cascades Volcano Observatory), California (California Volcano Observatory), and the Yellowstone region (Yellowstone Volcano Observatory). Although the National Park Service (NPS) managed HVO for only 12 years, HVO has enjoyed a close working relationship with Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park (named Hawaii National Park until 1961) since the park’s founding in 1916. Today, as in past years, the USGS and NPS work together to ensure the safety and education of park visitors. We are grateful to all park employees, particularly Superintendent Cindy Orlando and Chief Ranger Talmadge Magno and their predecessors, for their continuing support of HVO’s mission. HVO also works closely with the Hawaiʻi County Civil Defense. During volcanic and earthquake crises, we have appreciated the support of civil defense staff, especially that of Harry Kim and Quince Mento, who administered the agency during highly stressful episodes of Kīlauea's ongoing eruption. Our work in remote areas on Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes is possible only with the able assistance of Hawaiʻi County and private pilots who have safely flown HVO staff to eruption sites through the decades. A special mahalo goes to David Okita, who has been HVO’s principal helicopter pilot for more than two decades. Many commercial and Civil Air Patrol pilots have also assisted HVO by reporting their observations during various eruptive events. Hawaiʻi’s news media—print, television, radio, and online sources—do an excellent job of distributing volcano and earthquake information to the public. Their assistance is invaluable to HVO, especially during times of crisis. HVO’s efforts to provide timely and accurate scientific information about Hawaiian volcanoes and earthquakes succeed only because of you, our receptive and keenly aware public. By following the activity of Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes through our daily eruption updates posted on the HVO website, viewing HVO webcam images, reading our weekly “Volcano Watch” articles, and attending our public lectures, you help us to ensure that you can live safely with Hawaiʻi’s dynamic volcanoes. To everyone who has shared in HVO’s reaching this milestone—100 years of continuous volcano monitoring—we extend our deepest gratitude. Mahalo nui loa!

Hawai'i↗

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↗

USGS2007

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

Ground-water quality in the approximately 1,800 square-mile Southern Sierra study unit (SOSA) was investigated in June 2006 as part of the Statewide Basin Assessment Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Statewide 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 Southern Sierra study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground-water quality within SOSA, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from fifty wells in Kern and Tulare Counties. Thirty-five of the wells were selected using a randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area, and fifteen were selected to evaluate changes in water chemistry along ground-water flow paths. The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents [volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and wastewater-indicator compounds], 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, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water], 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 samples for matrix spikes) were collected for approximately one-eighth 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 resulted in censoring of less than 0.2 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, 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 and pesticides were detected in less than one-third of the grid wells, and all detections in samples from SOSA wells were below health-based thresholds. All detections of trace elements and nutrients in samples from SOSA wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of four detections of arsenic that were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) and one detection of boron that was above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA). All detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds, although four samples had activities of radon-222 above the proposed MCL-US. Most of the samples from SOSA wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. A few samples contained iron, manganese, or total dissolved solids at concentrations above the SMCL-CA thresholds.

California↗

USGS2008

Ground-water quality data in the Central Eastside San Joaquin Basin 2006: Results from the California GAMA program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 1,695-square-mile Central Eastside study unit (CESJO) was investigated from March through June 2006 as part of the Statewide Basin Assessment Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Statewide 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 study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground-water quality within CESJO, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 78 wells in Merced and Stanislaus Counties. Fifty-eight of the 78 wells were selected using a randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells). Twenty of the wells were selected to evaluate changes in water chemistry along selected lateral or vertical ground-water flow paths in the aquifer (flow-path wells). The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents [volatile organic compounds (VOCs), gasoline oxygenates and their degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates], constituents of special interest [perchlorate, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP)], inorganic constituents that can occur naturally [nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements], radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes [tritium, carbon-14, and uranium isotopes and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon], and dissolved noble and other 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 for 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. Assessment of the quality-control results showed that the environmental data were of good quality, with low bias and low variability, and resulted in censoring of less than 0.3 percent of the detections found in 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, and (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 (CADPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic concerns (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CADPH. VOCs and pesticides were detected in approximately half of the grid wells, and all detections in samples from CESJO wells were below health-based thresholds. All detections of nutrients and major elements in grid wells also were below health-based thresholds. Most detections of constituents of special interest, trace elements, and radioactive constituents in samples from grid wells were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions included two detections of arsenic that were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US), one detection of lead above the USEPA action level (AL-US), and one detection of vanadium and three detections of 1,2,3-TCP that were above the CADPH notification levels (NL-CA). All detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds, although fourteen samples had activities of radon-222 above the lower proposed MCL-US. Most of the samples from CESJO grid wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. A few samples contained manganese or total dissolved solids at concentrations above the SMCL-CA thresholds.

California↗

USGS2009

Groundwater quality data for the Tahoe-Martis study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 460-square-mile Tahoe–Martis study unit was investigated in June through September 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within the Tahoe–Martis study unit (Tahoe–Martis) and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 52 wells in El Dorado, Placer, and Nevada Counties. Forty-one of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 11 were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N -nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, strontium isotope ratio, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen of water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 240 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) each were collected at 12 percent of the wells, and the results obtained from these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that data for the groundwater samples were not compromised by possible contamination during sample collection, handling or analysis. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw 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 groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate of compliance or noncompliance with regulatory thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from the Tahoe–Martis wells were below drinking-water thresholds. Organic compounds (VOCs and pesticides) were detected in about 40 percent of the samples from grid wells, and most concentrations were less than 1/100th of regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds, although the conentration of perchloroethene in one sample was above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). Concentrations of all trace elements and nutrients in samples from grid wells were below regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds, with five exceptions. Concentrations of arsenic were above the MCL-US in 20 percent of the samples from grid wells. Gross alpha particle activity (MCL-US), boron (CDPH notification level, NL-CA), and molybdenum (USEPA lifetime health advisory, HAL-US) were each detected above thresholds in two of the samples from grid wells, and radon (proposed alternative MCL-US) was detected above the threshold in one sample from a grid well. Most of the samples from Tahoe–Martis grid wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the CDPH secondary maximum contaminant levels, nonenforceable thresholds set for aesthetic and technical concerns. Fifteen percent of the samples from grid wells contained iron, manganese, or total dissolved solids at concentrations above these levels.

California, Nevada↗

USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗

USGS1973

United States mineral resources

The work on this volume began in January 1972, but in a broader sense its production began many years ago. The chapters were written by geologists most of whom have had many years of experience studying the geology of mineral deposits, and more particularly the commodities about which they have written here. A total of nearly 2,300 man-years of professional experience in the geology of mineral resources is represented by the authors of the volume, and about 30 man-years went directly into its preparation. Each chapter contains not only a synthesis of the state of knowledge of the geology of the commodity, but also an appraisal of the known resources, and an examination of the geologic possibilities for finding additional deposits. In January 1972, responsibility for the preparation of the volume was assigned to us as co-editors, and we were given a tentative list of commodities and authors. We provided each author with a suggested outline of general topics to be covered, and some guidelines as to scope and philosophy of approach, but beyond that we avoided any attempt to fit each chapter into a stereotype. Moreover, the types of commodities range from the major metals and industrial minerals such as copper, silver, and fluorspar, which have been the subject of geologic research for years, to other commodities that are of such varied geologic nature (such as pigments or gemstones) or of such minor present importance (such as scandium or thallium) that they cannot be treated from the same viewpoint as the major minerals. The chapters range, therefore, from comprehensive summary reports to general essays that reflect the individuality of the authors as well as the variation among commodities. Throughout the book the emphasis is on geology, but each chapter contains some summary information on uses, technology, and economics. These summaries are not meant to be exhaustive, however, and additional details are in the 1970 edition of "Mineral Facts and Problems" (Bulletin 650 of the U.S. Bureau of Mines) ; indeed, we regard that book and the present volume as being complementary. In the examination of the geologic possibilities for finding new deposits-in many respects the principal innovative contributions of this volume-we asked the authors to frankly apply the limits of their ingenuity and not only to summarize current theories but also to express their own intuitive ideas, however speculative and unconventional they may seem, that have come from years of study devoted to the origin of mineral deposits. Readers will see that some authors have speculated more courageously than others. In any case, we believe readers will find all the chapters interesting, and many stimulating; and a few we believe can be frankly characterized as intellectually exciting. Most chapters include a section on prospecting techniques, and a summary of geologic or related problems on which the authors believe research might be most fruitful in the continuing efforts to find new resources. An integral part of the book is the bibliographic material cited at the conclusion of each chapter, in lieu of repetition of detailed descriptions already in print. Index and "spot" maps are not included in most chapters because they are available elsewhere, and in many cases with more detail than could possibly be included here. Maps showing the distribution of known deposits of many commodities in the United States are available in the Mineral Resource (MR) map series of the U.S. Geological Survey and in the National Atlas of the United States. The first three chapters deal not with resources of specific commodities but with general information that is pertinent to the study of mineral resources. In the introductory chapter we discuss the purposes of the book, the distinctions between reserves and various categories of resources, and some general conclusions drawn from our view of the book in its entirety. In the second chapter V. E. McKelvey discusses the problems of mineral-resource estimates and public policy. In the third chapter, R. L. Erickson discusses some new points of view on the relation of reserves and resources to the crustal abundance of elements. We acknowledge with thanks the cooperation of our colleagues in all phases of the preparation of this volume. Whatever success the book may attain is due entirely to a total effort. A paragraph of acknowledgment originally submitted as a part of the chapter on "Nuclear fuels" is given here instead because we feel it applied to all chapters: "The writers have drawn freely from published information, not all of which is cited, and from their colleagues, none of whom are given specific credit. The reader should be aware that the paper could not have been written without these sources." We extend specific thanks to Michael Fleischer for preparation of summaries of geochemical information that are included in many chapters.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2009

Groundwater quality data for the northern Sacramento Valley, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,180-square-mile Northern Sacramento Valley study unit (REDSAC) was investigated in October 2007 through January 2008 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within REDSAC and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 66 wells in Shasta and Tehama Counties. Forty-three of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and 23 were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial constituents. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate, stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen of water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 275 constituents and field water-quality indicators were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and sampmatrix spikes) were collected at approximately 8 to 11 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data obtained from the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges for nearly all compounds, indicating acceptably low variability. Matrix-spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and with aesthetic and technical thresholds established by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with those thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples from REDSAC were below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and pesticides were detected in less than one-quarter of the samples and were generally less than a hundredth of any health-based thresholds. NDMA was detected in one grid well above the NL-CA. Concentrations of all nutrients and trace elements in samples from REDSAC wells were below the health-based thresholds except those of arsenic in three samples, which were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US). However, none of these wells were public-supply wells. Concentrations of all radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds except radon-222, which was detected above the proposed MCL-US of 300 pCi/L in samples from 11 grid wells. Most of the samples from REDSAC wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic or technical concerns. A few samples contained iron, manganese, or pH at levels above the SMCL-CA or SMCL-US thresholds.

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↗

USGS2009

Ground-Water Quality Data in the Coachella Valley Study Unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 820 square-mile Coachella Valley Study Unit (COA) was investigated during February and March 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground water used for public-water supplies within the Coachella Valley, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of ground-water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 35 wells in Riverside County. Nineteen of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells). Sixteen additional wells were sampled to evaluate changes in water chemistry along selected ground-water flow paths, examine land use effects on ground-water quality, and to collect water-quality data in areas where little exists. These wells were referred to as 'understanding wells'. The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and potential wastewater-indicator compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate 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 (uranium, tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and boron), and dissolved noble gases (the last in collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) also were measured to help identify the source and age of the sampled ground water. A quality-control sample (blank, replicate, or matrix spike) was collected at approximately one quarter 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 resulted in V-coding less than 0.1 percent of the data collected. 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 supplied 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 the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic purposes (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. Most constituents detected in ground-water samples were at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and pesticide degradates were detected in less than one-third of the grid well samples collected. All VOC and pesticide concentrations measured were below health-based thresholds. Potential waste-water indicators were detected in less than half of the wells sampled, and no detections were above health-based thresholds. Perchlorate was detected in seven grid wells; concentrations from two wells were above the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA). Most detections of trace elements in samples collected from COA Study Unit wells were below water-quality thresholds. Exceptions include five samples of arsenic that were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US), two detections of boron above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA), and two detections of mol

Data Series↗

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↗

USGS2009

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

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,600 square-mile Antelope Valley study unit (ANT) was investigated from January to April 2008 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within ANT, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 57 wells in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. Fifty-six of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized, grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and one additional well was selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding well). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], gasoline additives and degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates, fumigants, and pharmaceutical compounds), 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), and radioactive constituents (gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, radium isotopes, and radon-222). Naturally occurring isotopes (strontium, tritium, and carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, 239 constituents and water-quality indicators (field parameters) were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and samples for matrix spikes) were collected at 12 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a noticeable source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples generally were within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptably low variability. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compoundsThis study did not 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 groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and 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 non-compliance with drinking water standards. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples were found at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in about one-half of the samples and pesticides detected in about one-third of the samples; all detections of these constituents were below health-based thresholds. Most detections of trace elements and nutrients in samples from ANT wells were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include: one detection of nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen (NO 2 +NO 3 ) above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US: 10 mg/L), five detections of arsenic above the MCL-US (6 μg/L), one detection of boron above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA: 1,000 μg/L), and two detections of vanadium above the NL-CA (50 μg/L). Most detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include two detections of gross alpha radioactivity (72-hour and 30-day counts) above the MCL-US (15 pCi/L). Also, radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US (300 pCi/L) in 14 grid wells and the understanding well, but no wells had detections above the proposed alternative MCL-US (4,000 pCi/L). Most of the samples from ANT wells had concentrations of major elements, total dissolved solids (TDS), and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Three samples contained sulfate and four samples contained total dissolved solids at concentrations above the SMCL-CA thresholds (250 mg/L and 500 mg/L, respectively). Two of the total dissolved solids detections were above the upper SMCL-CA (1,000 mg/L). Samples from four wells had field pH values above the SMCL-US (>pH 8.5). Field-measured specific conductance values were above the SMCL-CA (900 μS/cm at 25°C) at eight wells with four of these measurements above the upper SMCL-CA threshold (1,600 μS/cm at 25°C).

California↗

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↗

USGS2010

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

Groundwater quality in the 188-square-mile Colorado River Study unit (COLOR) was investigated October through December 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the technical project lead. The Colorado River study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of raw groundwater used for public water supplies within COLOR, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 28 wells in three study areas in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. Twenty wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the Study unit; these wells are termed ‘grid wells’. Eight additional wells were selected to evaluate specific water-quality issues in the study area; these wells are termed ‘understanding wells.’ The groundwater samples were analyzed for organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], gasoline oxygenates and degradates, pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate, 1,4-dioxane, and 1,2,3-trichlorpropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), and radioactive constituents. Concentrations of naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled groundwater. In total, approximately 220 constituents and water-quality indicators were investigated. Quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) were collected at approximately 30 percent of the wells, and the results were used to evaluate the quality of the data obtained from the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a significant source of bias in the data. Differences between replicate samples were within acceptable ranges and matrix-spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, raw groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to raw groundwater. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw groundwater were compared to regulatory and nonregulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and to thresholds established for aesthetic concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and drinking-water thresholds are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with those thresholds. The concentrations of most constituents detected in groundwater samples were below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) were detected in approximately 35 percent of grid well samples; all concentrations were below health-based thresholds. Pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in about 20 percent of all samples; detections were below health-based thresholds. No concentrations of constituents of special interest or nutrients were detected above health-based thresholds. Most of the major and minor ion constituents sampled do not have health-based thresholds; the exception is chloride. Concentrations of chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids detected in some of the well samples were above the nonenforceable thresholds for aesthetic concerns. Concentrations of fluoride were detected in 5 samples (from 4 grid wells and 1 understanding well) above the maximum contaminant level for California (MCL-CA). Concentrations of most of the trace elements in samples from the COLOR study were below health-based thresholds; exceptions included arsenic above the MCL-US, boron above the notification level for California (NL-CA), iron and manganese above the secondary maximum contaminant level for California (SMCL-CA), and molybdenum and strontium above the lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) threshold. Most detections of radioactive constituents were below health-based thresholds; exceptions were alpha, uranium, and radon radioactivity. Alpha radioactivity with 72 hour count detections occurred in four grid wells and one understanding well, and 30-day count detections in two grid wells above the MCL-US. Uranium was detected twice in grid wells above the MCL-US threshold. Also, radon-222 was detected at concentrations above the proposed MCL-US in 19 samples (14 grid and 5 understanding wells). No radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US upper threshold.

California↗

USGS2009

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

Groundwater quality in the approximately 1,500 square-mile Mojave (MOJO) study unit was investigated from February to April 2008, as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). MOJO was the 23rd of 37 study units to be sampled as part of the GAMA Priority Basin Project. The MOJO study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of the quality of untreated ground water used for public water supplies within MOJO, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of groundwater quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 59 wells in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. Fifty-two of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study area (grid wells), and seven were selected to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of organic constituents [volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and pesticide degradates, and pharmaceutical compounds], constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]) naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, dissolved organic carbon [DOC], major and minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids [TDS], and trace elements), and radioactive constituents (gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity, radium isotopes, and radon-222). Naturally occurring isotopes (stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, stable isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate, and activities of tritium and carbon-14), and dissolved noble gases also were measured to help identify the sources and ages of the sampled ground water. In total, over 230 constituents and water-quality indicators (field parameters) were investigated. Three types of quality-control samples (blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes) each were collected at approximately 5–8 percent of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the groundwater samples. Field blanks rarely contained detectable concentrations of any constituent, suggesting that contamination was not a significant source of bias in the data for the groundwater samples. Differences between replicate samples generally were within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptable analytical reproducibility. Matrix spike recoveries were within acceptable ranges for most compounds. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, untreated groundwater typically is treated, disinfected, or blended with other waters to maintain water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to water that is served to the consumer, not to untreated ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the untreated ground water were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic and technical concerns by CDPH. Comparisons between data collected for this study and thresholds for drinking-water are for illustrative purposes only, and are not indicative of compliance or non-compliance with those thresholds. Most constituents that were detected in groundwater samples in the 59 wells in MOJO were found at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. In MOJO’s 52 grid wells, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in 40 percent of the wells, and pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in 23 percent of the grid wells. Results for health-based thresholds in MOJO grid wells showed that all of the detections of organic compounds in samples from MOJO grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of a single detection of NDMA above the California Department of Public Health notification level (NL-CA). Trace elements and radioactive constituents were sampled for at 19 MOJO grid wells and most detections were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include: six detections of arsenic above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US), two detections of boron and one detection of vanadium above the NL-CA, one detection each of molybdenum and strontium that were above the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US), and one detection of fluoride just above the MCL-CA of 2 µg/L. Most detections of radioactive constituents in the MOJO grid wells were below health-based thresholds, with the exception of one detection of gross alpha radioactivity (72-hour count and 30-day count) above the MCL-CA, and 17 grid wells (of 19 sampled) that had activities of radon-222 above the proposed MCL-US of 300 pCi/L, but all were below the proposed alternative MCL-US of 4,000 pCi/L. All of the samples collected from the 19 MOJO grid wells for trace elements, and most of the samples for major ions and total dissolved solids (TDS), had measured concentrations below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Four grid wells had TDS concentrations above the California Department of Public Health secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL-CA) recommended threshold of 500 mg/L, and three of these wells were also above the SMCL-CA upper threshold of 1,000 mg/L. Four grid wells (of 19 sampled) had sulfate measured at concentrations above the recommended SMCL-CA threshold of 250 mg/L, and one of these detections was also above the upper SMCL-CA threshold of 500 mg/L. One grid well had chloride levels at a concentration above the upper SMCL-CA threshold of 500 mg/L. Eleven grid wells (of 52 sampled) had pH values outside of the SMCL-US range for pH.

California↗

USGS1990

The next big earthquake in the Bay Area may come sooner than you think—Are you prepared?

Many of us breathed a little easier after October 17, 1989. The Lorna Prieta earthquake, 7.1 on the Richter scale, meant that the big one, talked about for decades, had finally happened. And, bad as it was, we had survived. There are two things wrong with that. First, Lorna Prieta was not the big one. It was a moderately big one, certainly destructive to some parts of the Bay Area, but nowhere near the size of the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Second, having an earthquake like Lorna Prieta has little to do with the likelihood of having another one on a different fault, somewhere else in the area. The inevitability of a damaging earthquake still confronts everybody in the Bay Area, and we still risk substantial damage. A new study, released in July 1990 by the United States Geological Survey, says that there is a 67 percent chance of another earthquake the size of Lorna Prieta during the next 30 years and that the quake could strike at any time, including today. In other words, scientists think that a magnitude 7 or larger earthquake is now twice as likely to happen as not to happen. This is a substantial increase, since in 1988, scientists thought the chance for such an earthquake was 50 percent Gust as likely to occur as not to occur) within 30 years. The new report also says that the next one will most likely strike farther north than Lorna Prieta, somewhere between San Jose and Santa Rosa on either side of the Bay. The epicenter of the October 1989 quake was in a sparsely populated area. The next one, according to the study, will likely be centered in a more populated area. During the Lorna Prieta earthquake, shaking was so severe in the Santa Cruz Mountains that a van overturned, treetops snapped off, and many people were thrown to the ground. Because the next one is expected to strike closer to an urban area, it will cause much more damage. Fortunately, there is something we can do about it. By taking actions, such as those described in this booklet, we can drastically reduce the losses and we can make the Bay Area a safer place to live. Earthquake damage is particularly great in certain locations and in certain buildings. Most locations and most modem buildings are relatively safe. By identifying the greatest hazards, we can set priorities for using our limited resources most effectively to reduce them. The choice is ours.

General Interest Publication↗