In cooperation with 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

Ground-Water Quality in the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, New York, 2005-06 

Open-File Report 2007-1066 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Cover.—Photograph by Elizabeth Nystrom, U.S. Geological Survey. 
In cooperation with 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Ground-Water Quality in the St. Lawrence River Basin, 

New York, 2005-06 

By Elizabeth A. Nystrom 

Open-File Report 2007-1066 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Nystrom, E.A., 2007, Ground-water quality in the St. Lawrence River Basin, New York, 2005-06: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1066, 33 p., online only

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

 ii
Contents 

Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................................................2

Hydrogeologic Setting ...................................................................................................................................................2

Methods of Investigation ..................................................................................................................................................8

Site Selection ..................................................................................................................................................................8

Sampling Methods..........................................................................................................................................................9

Analytical Methods ......................................................................................................................................................10

Ground-Water Quality in the St. Lawrence River Basin............................................................................................11

Physical Properties ......................................................................................................................................................11

Major Ions......................................................................................................................................................................12

Nutrients.........................................................................................................................................................................13

Trace Elements and Radionuclides...........................................................................................................................13

Pesticides.......................................................................................................................................................................15

Volatile Organic Compounds and Phenolic Compounds.......................................................................................15

Bacteria ..........................................................................................................................................................................16

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................16

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................17

References Cited ..............................................................................................................................................................17

Figures 

Figure 1. Hydrologic and geographic features of the St. Lawrence River Basin in New York. ...........................4

Figure 2. Physiographic regions and locations of wells sampled in the St. Lawrence River Basin in New 

York. ......................................................................................................................................................................................5

Figure 3. Land cover and locations of wells sampled in the St. Lawrence River Basin in New York.................6

Figure 4. Generalized bedrock geology in the St. Lawrence River Basin, New York. ...........................................7

Tables 

Table 1. Wells from which ground-water samples were collected in the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06.

..............................................................................................................................................................................................21

Table 2. Constituents analyzed for but not detected in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, 2005-06....................................................................................................................................................................22

Table 3. Physical properties of ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06..............24

Table 4. Concentrations of major ions in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06.

..............................................................................................................................................................................................25

Table 5. Concentrations of nutrients and organic carbon in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence 

River Basin, 2005-06. ........................................................................................................................................................27

Table 6. Concentrations of trace elements and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the St. 

Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06......................................................................................................................................28

 iii
Table 7. Concentrations of pesticides and caffeine detected in ground-water samples from the St. 

Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06......................................................................................................................................31

Table 8. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds detected in ground-water samples from the St. 

Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06......................................................................................................................................32

Table 9. Bacteria in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06. ................................33

Conversion Factors 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length 

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.) 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

Area 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2) 

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume 

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

Flow rate 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s) 

Radioactivity 

picocurie per liter (pCi/L) 0.037 becquerel per liter (Bq/L) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: 

°F=(1.8×°C)+32 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

Abbreviated water-quality units used in this report: 

micrometers (μm) 

micrograms per liter (μg/L) 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) 

microsiemens per centimeter @ 25°C (μS/cm) 

Acronyms used in this report: 

AMCL Alternative maximum contaminant level 

CFU Colony-forming units 

cICP-MS Collision/reaction cell inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

ESA Ethanesulfonic acid 

 iv
GC-MS Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry 

GPS Global positioning system 

GWSI Ground-Water Site Inventory 

HPLC-MS High-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry 

ICP-AES Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry 

ICP-MS Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

ICP-OES Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry 

LC-MS Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry 

MCL Maximum contaminant level 

MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether 

NWQL USGS National Water Quality Laboratory 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

NYSDOH New York State Department of Health 

OGRL USGS Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory 

POC Principal organic contaminant 

PVC Polyvinyl chloride 

SDWS Secondary drinking water standards 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

 v
Ground-Water Quality in the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, New York, 2005-06 

By Elizabeth A. Nystrom 

Abstract 

The Federal Clean Water Act requires that States monitor and report on the quality of 

ground water and surface water. To satisfy part of these requirements, the U.S. Geological Survey 

and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation have developed a program in 

which ground-water quality is assessed in 2 to 3 of New York State’s 14 major river basins each 

year. To characterize the quality of ground water in the St. Lawrence River Basin in northern New 

York, water samples were collected from 14 domestic and 11 production wells between August 

2005 and January 2006. Eight of the wells were finished in sand and gravel and 17 wells were 

finished in bedrock. Ground-water samples were collected and processed using standard U.S. 

Geological Survey procedures and were analyzed for 229 constituents and physical properties, 

including inorganic constituents, nutrients, trace elements, radon-222, pesticides and pesticide 

degradates, volatile organic compounds, and bacteria. 

Sixty-six constituents were detected above laboratory reporting levels. Concentrations of 

most compounds at most sites were within drinking water standards established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Health, but a few 

compounds exceeded drinking water standards at some sites. Water in the basin is generally hard 

to very hard (hardness equal to 121 mg/L as CaCO3 or greater); hardness and alkalinity were 

generally higher in the St. Lawrence Valley than in the Adirondack Mountains. The cation with the 

highest median concentration was calcium; the anion with the highest median concentration was 

bicarbonate. The concentration of chloride in one sample exceeded the 250 milligrams per liter 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Secondary Drinking Water Standard; the concentration of 

sulfate in one sample also exceeded the 250 milligrams per liter U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Secondary Drinking Water Standard. Nitrate was the predominant nutrient detected but no 

sample exceeded the 10 mg/L U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant 

Level. The trace elements detected with the highest median concentrations were strontium, barium, 

and iron. Concentration of trace elements in several samples exceeded U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Secondary Drinking Water Standards, including aluminum (50 micrograms per 

liter, 4 samples), iron (300 micrograms per liter, 5 samples), and manganese (50 micrograms per 

liter, 4 samples). The concentration of uranium in one sample from a domestic well finished in 

crystalline bedrock was three times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum 

Contaminant Level of 30 micrograms per liter. 
The median concentration of radon-222 was 600 picoCuries per liter, but concentrations as 

high as 18,800 picoCuries per liter were detected; two wells with high radon concentrations also 

had high uranium concentrations. Radon-222 is not currently regulated, but the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a Maximum Contaminant Level of 300 picoCuries 

per liter along with an Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level of 4,000 picoCuries per liter, to 

be in effect in states that have programs to address radon in indoor air. Concentrations of radon222 exceeded the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level in 60 percent of samples and exceeded 

the proposed Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level in 8 percent of samples. Six pesticides and 

pesticide degradates were detected; all were amide or triazine herbicides or degradates. Five 

volatile organic compounds were detected, including disinfection byproducts such as 

trichloromethane and gasoline components or additives such as methyl tert-butyl ether. No 

pesticides, pesticide degradates, or volatile organic compounds were detected above established 

limits. Coliform bacteria, including Escherichia coli, were detected in three wells finished in 

carbonate bedrock. 

Introduction 

The Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 require that States monitor and report 

biennially on the chemical quality of surface water and ground water within their boundaries (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Section 305(b)). In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

(NYSDEC), developed a program to evaluate ground-water quality throughout the major river 

basins in New York State on a rotating basis. This program parallels the NYSDEC Rotating 

Intensive Basin Study program, which evaluates surface-water quality in two or three of 14 river 

basins in the State each year. Ground-water quality was studied in the Mohawk River Basin in 

2002 (Butch and others, 2003), in the Chemung River Basin in 2003 (Hetcher-Aguila, 2005), and 

in the Lake Champlain and Susquehanna River Basins in 2004 (Nystrom, 2006; Hetcher-Aguila 

and Eckhardt, 2006). In 2005-2006, ground-water quality in the St. Lawrence, Delaware, and 

Genesee River Basins was studied. 

Purpose and Scope 

This report presents the findings from the 2005-2006 ground-water quality study in the St. 

Lawrence River Basin. To characterize ground-water quality in the St. Lawrence River Basin, 25 

samples were collected in the basin between August 2005 and January 2006. This report (1) 

describes the methods of site selection, sample collection, and chemical analysis used to sample 

ground water in the St. Lawrence River Basin in 2005-2006, and (2) discusses the results by 

category–physical properties, major ions, nutrients, trace elements and radionuclides, pesticides, 

volatile organic compounds, and bacteria. Information about the wells sampled and results are 

presented in tables 1 through 9. 

Hydrogeologic Setting 

This study addresses the area in New York State that drains into the St. Lawrence River 

downstream of Lake Ontario, excluding the Lake Champlain/Richelieu River Basin (fig. 1). The 

St. Lawrence River Basin covers 5,650 mi2

 (Seaber and others, 1987) in northeastern New York 

State, including all of St. Lawrence County, most of Franklin County, and portions of Clinton, 

Essex, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, and Lewis Counties. The St. Lawrence River forms the 

2
international border between the United States and Canada for 114 mi, between the outlet of Lake 

Ontario and Cornwall, Ontario (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 

1994). 

The St. Lawrence River flows from the outlet of Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes to the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence at the Atlantic Ocean. About 296,000 mi2

 in the United States and Canada 

drain into the Great Lakes Basin, forming the largest fresh surface-water system in the world 

(Government of Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). The St. Lawrence 

River Basin in New York contains two main physiographic regions: the Adirondack Mountains and 

the St. Lawrence Valley (fig. 2). These regions differ in topography, climate, population, and land 

use. The Adirondack Mountains, with altitudes from about 1,000 ft to over 4,000 ft above sea 

level, are mostly forested, sparsely populated, and covers about 50 percent of the basin. The border 

of this physiographic region corresponds closely with the northwestern border of the Adirondack 

State Park; about 45 percent of the basin is in the park. The Adirondack State Park was created in 

1892 and has an area of approximately 6 million acres; nearly half of the land in the Park is owned 

by the State and is designated by the State Constitution as “forever wild”. Altitudes in the St. 

Lawrence valley range from about 250 to 1,000 ft above sea level. Approximately 28 percent of 

the gently rolling terrain in the valley is used for agriculture (fig. 3) as compared to about 2 percent 

of land in the Adirondack Mountains portion of the basin (land cover calculated from the National 

Land Cover Dataset, Vogelmann and others, 2001). Although the entire basin is predominantly 

rural, most of the largest population centers are in the St. Lawrence Valley. 

Bedrock geology in the St. Lawrence River Basin consists of metamorphic and sedimentary 

rock. Most of the bedrock in the Adirondack Mountains is metamorphic; the oldest rock in the 

region is the crystalline basement rock of Precambrian age, which includes metaplutonic 

anorthosite in the High Peaks region and granitic gneiss (Isachsen and others, 2000). Bedrock in 

the St. Lawrence Valley is mostly sedimentary, and includes Potsdam sandstone of Middle to Late 

Cambrian age, and Beekmantown Group limestone and dolostone of Early to Middle Ordovician 

age (Isachsen and others, 2000). Surficial deposits throughout the basin are primarily the result of 

the Wisconsin glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch, when the entire region was glaciated. The 

Adirondack Mountains and their foothills contain many small lakes, kames, kettles, and eskers as a 

result of glaciation. Scattered deposits of outwash, beach, and ice-contact sand and gravel are 

present. Glacial lake deposits and till are widespread in the St. Lawrence Valley. Till is coarser in 

the Adirondack Mountains than in the St. Lawrence Valley owing to the nature of the bedrock 

(Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975). 

Ground water is an important drinking-water supply source for domestic and public 

supplies in the St. Lawrence River Basin. Sand and gravel deposits generally produce the highest 

yields in the basin, but the sandstone and carbonate aquifers along the northern edge of the basin in 

the St. Lawrence Valley (fig. 4) also produce moderate yields (Great Lakes Basin Commission, 

1975). The crystalline bedrock in the Adirondack Mountains generally produces the lowest yields 

of the aquifers in the basin. Most domestic wells in the basin are finished in bedrock; production 

wells typically tap sand and gravel to obtain higher yields. Several small to medium size publicwater systems in the basin, however, utilize wells finished in bedrock, especially those in the 

western part of the basin. 

3
Figure 1. Hydrologic and geographic features of the St. Lawrence River Basin in New York. 

4
Figure 2. Physiographic regions and locations of wells sampled in the St. Lawrence River Basin in 

New York. 

5
Figure 3. Land cover and locations of wells sampled in the St. Lawrence River Basin in New York. 

6
Figure 4. Generalized bedrock geology in the St. Lawrence River Basin, New York. 

7
Methods of Investigation 

The methods used in this study, including (1) well-selection criteria, (2) sampling 

procedures, and (3) analytical methods, were designed to maximize data precision, accuracy, and 

comparability. Ground-water sample collection and processing were conducted in accordance with 

standard USGS procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). Samples were analyzed at 

four laboratories including the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, 

Colo., the USGS Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory (OGRL) in Lawrence Kans., and two 

NYSDOH-certified laboratories using documented methods. 

Site Selection 

Wells were selected for sampling to provide adequate spatial coverage of the basin, with 

emphasis on areas of greatest ground-water use; selection was based on the availability of 

hydrogeologic information about each well and its surrounding area. More wells finished in 

bedrock were sampled than wells finished in sand and gravel owing to the general predominance of 

bedrock wells in many areas of the basin. The 25 wells selected for sampling represented forested, 

rural, residential, and agricultural areas. Locations of the wells are shown in figure 2; the 

characteristics of the wells sampled and the land cover surrounding each is listed in table 1. The 

project did not target specific municipal, industrial, or agricultural practices. Water samples were 

collected from 5 domestic wells and 3 production wells completed in glacial sand and gravel 

aquifers; and from 9 domestic and 8 production wells completed in bedrock aquifers. 

The 14 domestic wells were selected based on information from the NYSDEC Water Well 

program, which began in 2000. The program requires that licensed well drillers file a report with 

NYSDEC containing basic information about each well drilled—such as well and casing depth and 

diameter, yield, as well as a hydrogeologic log. Inspection of well-completion reports identified 

100 to 120 wells as potential sampling locations. The well owners were sent a letter that included a 

request for permission to sample the well, and questionnaire asking the location of the well, the 

most convenient times for sampling, and other well-related information. Well owners who granted 

permission were contacted later by phone to clarify well information and arrange a sampling time. 

The 11 production wells were identified through the New York State Department of Health 

(NYSDOH) Public Water Supply databases and the USGS Ground-Water Site Inventory (GWSI) 

database. Town officials and (or) water managers were sent letters and questionnaires similar to 

those sent to domestic-well owners. Follow-up phone calls were used in a manner similar to that 

used for domestic wells. Well information such as well depth and bedrock lithology was provided 

by water managers. Bedrock geology for production and domestic wells was verified through 

published bedrock geology maps, such as Fisher and others (1970). 

Eight of the 25 wells were finished in sand and gravel and 17 of the wells were finished in 

bedrock. Five of the 14 domestic wells were finished in sand and gravel, and nine were finished in 

bedrock (table 1). Three of the 11 production wells were screened in sand and gravel and eight 

were finished in bedrock. The sand and gravel wells ranged in depth from 27 to 236 feet; the 

bedrock wells ranged from 71 to 500 feet deep and were finished in fractured sandstone (2 wells), 

limestone (8 wells), or Precambrian crystalline rock (7 wells). Land use around the wells varied 

from predominantly agricultural (for example well F529) to residential (ST1421) to forested (F573) 

(fig. 3). 

8
Sampling Methods 

The 25 wells were sampled between August 2005 and January 2006. Ground-water 

samples were collected and processed using standard USGS protocols (U.S. Geological Survey, 

variously dated). Water samples were collected from a spigot between the well and pressure tank, 

where possible, and before any water-treatment system so that they would be most representative 

of the source water quality of the aquifer. Most production wells were sampled at a spigot or a 

faucet used for collection of raw-water samples by water managers. Most domestic wells were 

sampled from a spigot near the pressure tank. 

One or two wells were sampled per day. Typically, samples were collected using one or 

more 10-ft lengths of Teflon tubing attached to a “garden-hose” type spigot located as close to the 

well as possible. After connecting the tubing, the well was purged by running to waste for at least 

20 minutes, or until at least one well-casing volume of water had passed the sampling point. Most 

of the production wells were pumped for at least 1 hour prior to sampling, typically at pumping 

rates on the order of 100 gal/min. Domestic wells were purged at pumping rates ranging from 

about 5 to 10 gal/min; less than three well-casing volumes were purged from recently used wells. 

During well purging, notes about the well and surrounding land and land use were taken, and a 

global positioning system (GPS) measurement of latitude and longitude also was made. After 

purging the well, water was directed at about 1 to 2 gal/min into the flow-through chamber that 

contained a multi-parameter meter with temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolvedoxygen probes. Field values were then recorded at regular intervals; sampling began when the 

values of temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen concentration had stabilized 

(U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). 

For sample collection, the flow rate was adjusted to about 1 gal/min; at domestic wells, 

another spigot was left open during sampling to keep the submersible pump running. The Teflon 

sampling tube was then disconnected from the multi-parameter meter and connected to a sampling 

chamber constructed of a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) frame and a clear plastic chamber bag. The 

sampling chamber was placed on a plastic-box table with a built-in drain. The Teflon tubing and 

spigot-attachment equipment were cleaned in the laboratory before each day of sampling with a 

dilute Liquinox solution, followed by tapwater and deionized-water. Equipment for filtration for 

pesticide samples was methanol rinsed. A fresh sampling-chamber bag was used at each site. 

Samples were collected and preserved in the sampling chamber according to standard USGS 

sampling methods (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). Sample bottles for nutrient, majorion, and some trace-element analyses were filled with water filtered through disposable (one-time 

use) 0.45-μm-pore-size polyether sulfone capsule filters that were pre-conditioned in the laboratory 

with deionized water the day of sample collection. Sample bottles for pesticide analysis were filled 

with water filtered through baked 0.7-μm-pore-size glass fiber filters. Acid preservation was 

required for trace elements, VOCs, and major cation analyses. Acid preservation was done only 

after collection of other samples to avoid the possibility of cross contamination by the acid 

preservative; for example, samples preserved with nitric acid were acidified after the collection of 

samples for nutrient analysis. Samples for radon analysis were collected through a septum 

chamber with a glass syringe according to standard USGS procedures (U.S. Geological Survey, 

variously dated). Water samples analyzed by non-USGS laboratories were collected in bottles 

provided by the analyzing laboratory. 

All samples except those for radiological analysis were chilled to 4° C or less after 

collection. Samples for bacterial analysis were personally delivered to a NYSDEC-certified 

9
laboratory in Lisbon, N.Y. (fig. 1), within 6 hours of collection; the remainder of the samples were 

shipped, overnight delivery, to the designated laboratories. 

Most sampling sites had easy access to a spigot, however, some production wells did not. 

Wells L176, ST378, and ST1420 were sampled from faucets and wells J177 and ST950 from taps 

where water-system personnel routinely collect raw water samples. Physical properties were 

measured with the multi-parameter meter in a bucket after flow adjustment to avoid air 

entrainment. The syringe for radon-222 sample collection at these sites was inserted directly into 

the flowing water in the throat of the faucet or tap to minimize sample exposure to the atmosphere. 

pH and dissolved oxygen were not measured in the field at sites F543, ST1415, and ST2136 

because of probe failure; pH measured in the laboratory is reported for these sites. 

Analytical Methods 

Samples were analyzed for 229 physical properties and constituents, including inorganic 

constituents, nutrients, trace elements, radionuclides, pesticides and their degradates, volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), and bacteria. Physical properties, such as water temperature, pH, and 

specific conductance were measured at the sampling site. Analyses for inorganic constituents, 

nutrients, trace elements, radon-222, pesticides and pesticide degradates, and volatile organic 

compounds were conducted at the USGS NWQL in Denver, CO; additional pesticide and pesticide 

degradate analyses were done at the USGS OGRL in Lawrence, Kans. Other analyses were done at 

NYSDOH-certified laboratories; including total organic carbon and phenolic compound analyses at 

Friend Laboratory in Waverly, N.Y., and bacterial analyses at Premium Testing Laboratory in 

Lisbon, N.Y. 

Anion concentrations were determined by ion-exchange chromatography, and cation 

analyses were conducted using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICPAES), as described in Fishman (1993). Nutrients were analyzed using colorimetry, as described by 

Fishman (1993), and Kjeldahl digestion with photometric finish, as described by Patton and Truitt 

(2000). Mercury concentrations were determined using cold vapor–atomic fluorescence 

spectrometry according to methods described by Garbarino and Damrau (2001). Arsenic, 

chromium, and nickel analyses were analyzed using collision/reaction cell inductively coupled 

plasma-mass spectrometry (cICP-MS) as described by Garbarino and others (2006). Remaining 

trace-element analyses were done by ICP-AES (Struzeski and others, 1996), inductively coupled 

plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), and inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry (ICP-MS) (Garbarino and Struzeski, 1998). In-bottle digestions for trace-element 

analyses were done as described by Hoffman and others (1996). Radon-222 was measured by 

liquid-scintillation counting (ASTM International, 2006). 

Samples for pesticide analyses were processed as described by Wilde and others (2004). 

Pesticides and pesticide-degradates were analyzed at the NWQL using gas chromatography-mass 

spectrometry (GC-MS) and high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLCMS) as described by Zaugg and others (1995), Sandstrom and others (2001), and Furlong and 

others (2001). Acetamide parent compounds and degradation-product analyses were conducted 

using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) at the USGS OGRL according to 

methods described by Lee and Strahan (2003). The VOC analyses were done using GC-MS by 

methods described by Connor and others (1998). 

Bacteriological analyses were completed at Premium Testing Laboratory, a NYSDOHcertified laboratory in the St. Lawrence River Basin. The samples were collected and processed in 

10
accordance with NYSDEC and NYSDOH protocols, except that the tap each water sample was 

collected from was not flame sterilized. Samples were tested for total coliform, fecal coliform, and 

Escherichia coli (E. coli) by Standard Methods 9222 B and D (American Public Health 

Association, 1998). A heterotrophic plate count test (SM 9215 B) also was conducted. 

Total organic carbon and total phenols were analyzed by Friend Laboratory, a NYSDOHcertified laboratory. Total organic carbon analyses was determined using EPA Method 9060 (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2004), and total phenols were analyzed using EPA method 

420.2 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983). 

One field blank sample and one sequential replicate sample were collected for quality 

assurance in addition to the 25 ground-water samples. Nitrogen-purged VOC/pesticide-grade 

universal blank water and inorganic-grade blank water supplied by the USGS NWQL were used for 

an equipment blank; the water was run through a portion of the Teflon tubing used for sampling 

and water for filtered-water constituents was pumped through pre-cleaned filters. Samples were 

acidified in the same manner as environmental samples. The blank contained no chemical 

concentrations above the laboratory reporting levels; the color of the blank sample was measured to 

be 5 platinum-cobalt units. The percent-concentration differences from the sequential replicate 

sample were less than 5 percent for the 29 of the 32 constituents detected in the replicate sample. 

The largest percent differences between concentration in the ground-water sample and the replicate 

sample were in arsenic (0.16 μg/L in the environmental sample and 0.2 μg/L in the qualityassurance sample with a laboratory reporting level of 0.12 μg/L) and chromium (0.36 μg/L in the 

environmental sample and 0.4 μg/L in the quality-assurance sample with a laboratory reporting 

level of 0.04 μg/L. 

Ground-Water Quality in the St. Lawrence River Basin 

Ground-water samples were analyzed for 229 constituents or properties; of these, more than 

half (164) were not detected in any sample above laboratory reporting levels (table 2). The 66 

constituents and properties that were detected are reported in tables 3 through 9. Some 

concentrations of constituents are reported as estimated concentrations; these semi-quantitative 

values are preceded by an “E” remark code in the tables. Estimated concentrations are typically 

reported in cases where the detected value is less than established laboratory reporting levels or 

when recovery of a compound has been shown to be highly variable (Childress and others, 1999). 

Concentrations of some constituents exceeded maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or secondary 

drinking water standards (SDWS) set by USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003) or 

NYSDOH (New York State Department of Health, 1998). MCLs are enforceable standards for 

finished water at public-water supplies; they are not enforceable for private homeowner wells but 

are presented here as a standard for evaluation of the water quality results. 

Physical Properties 

None of the field physical properties of the samples exceeded established water-quality 

standards; some physical properties varied by region within the basin. Sample color ranged from 

<1 to 12 platinum-cobalt units (table 3). No sample exceeded the USEPA SDWS or NYSDOH 

MCL of 15 platinum-cobalt units. The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the well water ranged 

from 0.1 mg/L to 11.6 mg/L with a median of 2.6 mg/L. pH ranged from 6.8 to 8, and the median 

pH was 7.4; no sample exceeded the USEPA SDWS pH range of 6.5 to 8.5. Specific conductance 

ranged from 99 to 1,830 μS/cm @ 25°C, with a median of 364 μS/cm, and was higher in the St. 

11
Lawrence Valley than in the Adirondack Mountains, especially in wells finished in carbonate 

bedrock. Water temperature ranged from 7.3 to 12.2°C, with a median of 9.4°C. 

Major Ions 

The alkalinity and hardness of the water samples is typically influenced by the minerals that 

comprise the source aquifers. Alkalinity ranged from 33 to 215 mg/L as CaCO3 with a median of 

124 mg/L as CaCO3

 (table 4); alkalinity was generally higher in the St. Lawrence Valley, especially 

in wells in areas of carbonate bedrock. Water hardness ranged from 42 to 800 mg/L as CaCO3 with 

a median of 170 mg/L as CaCO3; 72 percent (18) of the samples were hard or very hard (121 mg/L 

as CaCO3 or higher) (Hem, 1985). Water in the St. Lawrence Valley typically was harder than 

water in the Adirondack Mountains; 89 percent of samples in the St. Lawrence Valley were hard or 

very hard, compared to 17 percent of samples from the Adirondack Mountains. The median 

noncarbonate hardness constituted 24 percent of total hardness in the samples. Silica 

concentrations ranged from 6.52 mg/L to 24.6 mg/L, with a median concentration of 11.9 mg/L. 

Residue on evaporation ranged from 73 mg/L to 1,130 mg/L, with a median of 210 mg/L. 

The cation with the highest concentrations in the ground-water samples was calcium, which 

ranged from 11.1 mg/L to 255 mg/L, with a median of 47.6 mg/L. The anion with the highest 

concentrations in the ground-water samples was bicarbonate (HCO3

-

, calculated from alkalinity), 

which ranged from 40 mg/L to 262 mg/L, with a median of 151 mg/L. Concentrations of most 

ions, with the exception of bicarbonate, were higher in wells finished in bedrock than in sand and 

gravel. In addition, most ion concentrations, with the exception of fluoride, were higher in wells 

finished in carbonate bedrock than in crystalline bedrock; ion concentrations were also generally 

higher in the St. Lawrence Valley than in the Adirondack Mountains. The concentration of 

chloride in one sample (386 mg/L) exceeded the USEPA SDWS and NYSDOH MCL of 250 mg/L, 

and the concentration of sulfate in one sample (501 mg/L) exceeded the USEPA SDWS and 

NYSDOH MCL of 250 mg/L. No sample exceeded the USEPA SDWS or NYSDOH MCLs for 

fluoride (lowest standard 2 mg/L). The minimum, median, and maximum concentrations of ions 

(in mg/L) and inorganic properties in the 25 well samples are listed as follows: 

Sand and gravel wells Carbonate wells Crystalline & sandstone wells 

(8 samples) (8 samples) (9 samples) 

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum 

Calcium 11.1 27.4 47.9 30.7 88.2 255 15.2 47.9 69.7 

Magnesium 3.4 9.9 20.5 15.1 32.1 48.5 2.51 12.3 21.4 

Cations 

Potassium 0.49 0.74 2.36 1.6 2.9 9.15 0.37 1.00 3.62 

Sodium 1.5 3.6 6.9 10.8 25.2 167 1.71 7.23 27.6 

Bicarbonate 40 121 262 128 202 251 50 143 216 

Chloride 0.47 2.38 8.55 4.21 39.9 386 0.53 10.3 124 

Anions 

Fluoride < .1 0.1 0.2 < .1 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.3 1.5 

Sulfate 6.8 12.0 27.9 21 38.8 501 4.5 15.6 33.0 

12
Sand and gravel wells Carbonate wells Crystalline & sandstone wells 

(8 samples) (8 samples) (9 samples) 

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum 

Hardness, mg/L as 

CaCO3

42 110 200 150 325 800 50 170 240 

Alkalinity, mg/L as 

CaCO3

33 100 215 105 166 206 41 117 177 

Residue on 

evaporation, mg/L 73 132 221 210 386 1130 85 186 411 

Nutrients 

The principal nutrient detected was nitrate. Nitrate was detected in 15 samples with a 

median concentration of 0.12 mg/L. No sample exceeded the USEPA and NYSDOH 10 mg/L 

MCL for nitrate; the maximum concentration was 3.45 mg/L and more than 90 percent of the 

samples had nitrate concentrations of less than 1 mg/L. Ammonia plus organic nitrogen was 

detected in 15 samples, with a maximum concentration of 0.6 mg/L and a median concentration of 

0.06 mg/L (table 5). Ammonia was detected in 5 samples with a maximum concentration of 0.51 

mg/L. Ammonia and ammonia plus organic nitrogen were detected more frequently in the St. 

Lawrence Valley than in the Adirondack Mountains. Nitrite, rarely detected in ground water, was 

detected in only one sample at an estimated concentration of 0.004 mg/L, well below the 1 mg/L 

MCL. Orthophosphate was detected in 3 samples with a maximum concentration of 0.19 mg/L. 

Total organic carbon was detected in 12 samples, mostly in bedrock wells in the St. Lawrence 

Valley, its maximum concentration was 4.2 mg/L. 

Trace Elements and Radionuclides 

The trace elements with the highest concentrations in the water samples were strontium 

(median concentration 167 μg/L), barium (63 μg/L), and iron (40 μg/L in unfiltered water and 9 

μg/L in filtered water), as shown in table 6. Metal concentrations, especially lithium, uranium, and 

strontium, were generally higher in samples from wells finished in bedrock than in those finished in 

sand and gravel. In addition, concentrations of trace elements, especially manganese and iron, 

were higher in samples from wells in the St. Lawrence Valley than in those in the Adirondack 

Mountains. Arsenic concentrations in 80 percent of samples were 0.5 μg/L or less, but 

concentrations of up to 6.2 μg/L were present in samples from wells 125 feet deep or less; none 

exceeded the USEPA MCL for arsenic (10 μg/L). Iron concentrations were higher in shallow wells 

than in deep wells. Iron, manganese, and arsenic concentrations were higher in crystalline bedrock 

areas than other types of bedrock, and concentrations of boron and zinc were higher in areas of 

carbonate bedrock than other types of bedrock. Concentrations of most trace elements in samples 

from wells J621 and ST1855 were consistently greater than median concentrations; both wells were 

finished in shallow noncarbonate bedrock in the St. Lawrence Valley. 

13
Concentrations of several trace elements exceeded USEPA MCLs or SDWS and/or 

NYSDOH MCLs, including aluminum, iron, manganese, and uranium; all exceedances were in 

samples from domestic wells. Four samples had aluminum concentrations greater than 50 μg/L, the 

low end of the USEPA SDWS range for aluminum, but only one sample (3,250 μg/L) exceeded 

200 μg/L—the high end of the range. Concentrations of iron in five unfiltered samples and one 

filtered sample exceeded 300 μg/L, the USEPA SDWS and NYSDOH MCL. Concentrations of 

manganese in four samples, filtered and unfiltered, exceeded the USEPA SDWS of 50 μg/L, and 

the concentration in one sample exceeded the NYSDOH MCL of 300 μg/L. 

 Well J621 had a very high concentration of iron in unfiltered water (45.5 mg/L), although 

the concentration of iron in filtered water was much less (0.2 mg/L). Concentrations of several 

other trace elements in the unfiltered sample from this well were greater than the median 

concentration in the rest of the wells sampled. When the well was pumped, the water became 

turbid and contained a noticeable amount of sediment (likely drawn in from a fracture) that 

probably resulted in the high concentrations of trace elements in the acidified unfiltered sample. 

Regulatory limits, μg/L 

Compound 

USEPA 

MCL 

USEPA 

Secondary 

Standard 

NYSDOH 

MCL 

Samples 

exceeding 

lowest 

standard

Aluminum 50-200 4 

Iron 300 300 5 

Manganese 50 300 4 

Iron plus 

manganese 

500 5 

Uranium 30 1 

Radon-222 concentrations in the ground-water samples ranged from 130 pCi/L to 18,800 

pCi/L with a median concentration of 600 pCi/L. Radon concentrations generally were higher in 

samples from wells finished in bedrock than in samples from wells finished in sand and gravel, as 

shown in the following table; this is consistent with other published reports on radon in ground 

water (Gundersen and Wanty, 1991). Radon concentrations in ground water generally depend on 

the uranium content and physical characteristics of the material the well is finished in; they are 

typically higher in ground water from granitic rocks and high-grade metamorphic rocks but can 

vary significantly within the same formation (Brutsaert and others, 1981). Anomalously high 

concentrations of radon are sometimes found in sheared fault zones (Gundersen, 1991). Radon 

concentrations are typically lower in glacial sand and gravel aquifers although the source material 

of the sediments plays an important role (Hall and others, 1987). 

Radon is currently not regulated in drinking water; however, the USEPA has proposed a 

two-part standard for radon in drinking water: (1) a 300 pCi/L MCL for areas that do not 

implement an indoor air radon mitigation program, and (2) an alternative MCL (AMCL) of 4,000 

pCi/L for areas that do (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). Concentrations in 15 of the 

samples (60 percent) exceeded the proposed MCL. Two samples had very high concentrations of 

radon: 11,000 pCi/L and 18,800 pCi/L; and were the only samples to exceed the proposed AMCL. 

Both samples came from domestic wells finished in crystalline bedrock, and both also had much 

14
higher uranium concentrations than the other samples. Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.007 

to 90.6 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.615 μg/L. The concentration of uranium in one 

sample was 3 times higher than the USEPA MCL of 30 μg/L. 

Radon-222 in picoCuries per liter 

Sand & gravel wells 

(8 samples) 

Bedrock wells 

(17 samples) 

Minimum 150 130 

Median 320 830 

Maximum 860 18,800 

Pesticides 

Six pesticides and pesticide degradates were detected in four samples; all were herbicides or 

their degradates, and most were degradates of the triazine and amide broadleaf herbicides atrazine, 

alachlor, and metolachlor (table 7). All of the pesticide detections were at concentrations of 0.03 

μg/L or less, except alachlor ethanesulfonic acid (alachlor ESA), detected in one sample at a 

concentration of 0.36 μg/L. No concentrations of pesticides or pesticide degradates exceeded 

established drinking water standards. The compounds detected are all considered Unspecified 

Organic Compounds under NYSDOH regulations and, as such, have a MCL of 50 μg/L, although 

several of the parent herbicides have lower MCLs. Pesticides were detected in samples from four 

wells, one of which was finished in sand and gravel, and three of which were finished in bedrock. 

Caffeine, which was included in the pesticide analysis, was detected in samples from two wells at 

estimated concentrations of 0.016 and 0.012 μg/L. 

Volatile Organic Compounds and Phenolic Compounds 

Five VOCs were detected in samples from 8 of the 25 wells (table 8). Trichloromethane 

(chloroform) was detected in samples from 4 wells with concentrations ranging from 0.1 μg/L to 

0.5 μg/L. Trichloromethane is a trihalomethane, a group of compounds that are byproducts of 

chlorination; the USEPA and NYSDOH MCLs for total trihalomethanes is 80 μg/L. Total 

trihalomethanes include bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, tribromomethane 

(bromoform), and trichloromethane (chloroform). m- plus p-xylenes were detected in one sample 

at an estimated concentration of 0.1 μg/L. Xylenes, found in petroleum, are used as solvents and 

are also present in gasoline. m- and p-xylenes are designated as Principal Organic Contaminants 

(POCs) by NYSDOH; the MCL for POCs is 5 μg/L, and the USEPA MCL for total xylenes is 

10,000 μg/L. Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) was detected in samples from 3 sites at 

concentrations from an estimated 0.1 to 0.3 μg/L, well below the NYSDOH MCL of 10 μg/L. 

MTBE is a fuel oxygenate used in reformulated gasoline to meet requirements of the Clean Air Act 

Reformulated Gasoline Program. Toluene was detected in one sample at a concentration of 0.6 

μg/L, well below the NYSDOH MCL of 5 μg/L and USEPA MCL of 1,000 μg/L. Toluene, an 

aromatic hydrocarbon, is used as a solvent and is a component of gasoline. 

15
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) was detected in one sample at an estimated concentration of 

0.5 μg/L. Seven of the eight samples that contained detectable VOCs were from wells finished in 

bedrock, three of which were finished in crystalline bedrock, three in carbonate bedrock, and one in 

sandstone. 

Bacteria 

Bacterial analyses included presence/absence tests for total coliform, fecal coliform and E. 

coli, and a heterotrophic plate count. Total coliform, fecal coliform and E. coli were each detected 

in samples from three wells finished in carbonate bedrock, from 125 to 300 feet deep (table 9). All 

three wells were located in the St. Lawrence Valley, and land cover within a half-mile radius of 

each of the wells was at least 20 percent agricultural. Any detection in drinking water of coliform 

bacteria is considered to be above the MCL. The owners of the wells were notified of the results 

upon receipt from the laboratory. Heterotrophic plate counts ranged from less than one colonyforming unit (CFU) per mL of sample to more than 150 CFU/mL with a median of 8 CFU/mL. 

The USEPA MCL for the heterotrophic plate count is 500 CFU/mL; only the two samples in which 

the colonies were too numerous too count (greater than 150 CFU) may have exceeded this MCL. 

Summary 

Ground-water samples were collected from 14 domestic and 11 production wells between 

August 2005 and January 2006 to characterize the ground-water quality in the St. Lawrence River 

Basin in New York State. Samples were analyzed for physical properties, inorganic constituents, 

nutrients, trace elements, radon-222, pesticides, VOCs, and bacteria. Eight of the wells sampled 

were finished in sand and gravel, and 17 were finished in bedrock. Bedrock aquifers in the basin 

include carbonate and sandstone aquifers along the northern edge of the basin, and crystalline 

aquifers in the Adirondack Mountains. Samples were collected using standard USGS protocols and 

analyzed in the field and at USGS and private laboratories for 229 properties and constituents; 

more than half (164) were not detected in any sample above reporting levels. 

Sample color ranged from <1 to 12 platinum-cobalt units; no sample exceeded the USEPA 

SDWS or NYSDOH MCL of 15 units. Water pH ranged from 6.8 to 8 and no sample exceeded the 

USEPA SDWS range of 6.5 to 8.5. Ground water in the basin is mostly hard or very hard (121 

mg/L as CaCO3 or higher), especially in the St. Lawrence Valley where carbonate and sandstone 

aquifers predominate. The cation with the highest median concentration was calcium and the anion 

with the highest median concentration was bicarbonate. The USEPA SDWS and NYSDOH MCL 

of 250 mg/L for chloride and sulfate was exceeded in one sample for each constituent. The 

predominant nutrient was nitrate, but no concentrations of nitrate exceeded USEPA or NYSDOH 

standards. The trace elements with the highest median concentrations were strontium, barium, and 

iron. Concentrations of aluminum, iron, manganese, and uranium exceeded USEPA SDWS and/or 

NYSDOH MCLs, most commonly iron and manganese in unfiltered water. One sample had a very 

high concentration of iron (45.5 mg/L) and one sample had a very high concentration of uranium 

(90.6 μg/L). Concentrations of radon-222 frequently exceeded the USEPA proposed MCL of 300 

pCi/L (60 percent of samples) and in two samples exceeded the proposed AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L 

(11,100 and 18,800 pCi/L). Six pesticides or pesticide degradates were detected in four samples, 

most were degradates of triazine and amide broadleaf herbicides detected at concentrations of 0.03 

μg/L or less; no concentrations of pesticides or pesticide degradates exceeded established drinking 

water standards. Caffeine was detected in two samples from wells finished in sand and gravel at 

16
concentrations of 0.016 μg/L or less. Five VOCs were detected in 8 samples at concentrations of 

0.5 μg/L or less, and included gasoline components and additives (methyl tert-butyl ether, detected 

in three samples), and disinfection byproducts (trichloromethane, detected in 4 samples). Coliform 

bacteria, including total coliform, fecal coliform and E. coli were detected in three samples from 

wells finished in carbonate bedrock. 

Acknowledgments 

The completion of this project was made possible by the assistance of several individuals 

and municipalities whom the author would like to acknowledge. Well operators and owners 

provided access to the wells sampled as well as well construction information. Daniel Kendall of 

the NYSDEC provided hydrogeologic information from the Water Well Completion Database 

about many of the wells sampled. 

References Cited 

American Public Health Association, 1998, Standard methods for the examination of water and 

wastewater (20th ed.): Washington, D.C., American Public Health Association, American Water 

Works Association, and Water Environment Federation [variously paged]. 

ASTM International, 2006, D5072-98(2006), Standard test method for radon in drinking water: 

ASTM International, accessed 12/28/06 at http://www.astm.org. 

Brutsaert, W.F., Norton, S.A., Hess, C.T., and Williams, J.S., 1981, Geologic and hydrologic 

factors controlling radon-222 in ground water in Maine: Ground Water, v. 19, no. 4, p. 407-417. 

Butch, G.K., Murray, P.M., Hebert, G.J., and Weigel, J.F., 2003, Water Resources Data, New 

York, Water Year 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report, NY-02-1, p. 502-520. 

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting 

procedures based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for 

interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-193, 19 p. 

Connor, B.F., Rose, D.L., Noriega, M.C., Murtagh, L.K., and Abney, S.R., 1998, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of 

86 volatile organic compounds in water by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, including 

detections less than reporting limits: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-829, 78 p. 

Fisher, D.W., Isachsen, Y.W., and Rickard, L.V., 1970, Geologic Map of New York State: New 

York State Museum – Geological Survey, Map and Chart Series no. 15, Adirondack sheet, scale 

1:250,000. 

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory—Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-125, 217 p. 

17
Furlong, E.T., Anderson, B.D., Werner, S.L., Soliven, P.P., Coffey, L.J., and Burkhardt, M.R., 

2001, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of pesticides in water by graphitized carbon-based solid-phase extraction and 

high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 01-4134, 73 p. 

Garbarino, J.R. and Damrau, D.L., 2001, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of organic plus inorganic mercury in filtered 

and unfiltered natural water with cold vapor—atomic fluorescence spectrometry: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4132, 16 p. 

Garbarino, J.R., Kanagy, L.K., and Cree, M.E., 2006, Determination of elements in natural-water, 

biota, sediment and soil samples using collision/reaction cell inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 5, chap.1, sec. B, 88 p. 

Garbarino, J.R. and Struzeski, T.M., 1998, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of elements in whole-water digests using 

inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-165, 101 p. 

Government of Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, The Great Lakes—An 

Environmental Atlas and Resource Book: USEPA report 905-B-95-001, 46 p. 

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study--Appendix 3, Geology 

and Ground Water: Great Lakes Basin Commission, 152 p. 

Gundersen, L.C.S., 1991, Radon in sheared metamorphic and igneous rocks, in Gundersen, L.C.S. 

and Wanty, R.B., eds., Field studies of radon in rocks, soils, and water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1971, p. 39-50. 

Gundersen, L.C.S., and Wanty, R.B., eds., 1991, Field studies of radon in rocks, soils, and water: 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1971, 334 p. 

Hall, F.R., Boudette, E.L., and Olszewski, W.J., Jr., 1987, Geologic controls and radon occurrence 

in New England, in Graves, B., ed., Radon, radium, and other radioactivity in ground water: 

Chelsea, Mich., Lewis Publishers, p. 15-30. 

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p. 

Hetcher-Aguila, K.K., 2005, Ground-water quality in the Chemung River Basin, New York, 2003: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1329, 19 p. (online only). 

Hetcher-Aguila, K.K. and Eckhardt, D.A., 2006, Ground-water quality in the upper Susquehanna 

River Basin, New York, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1161, 21 p. 

(online only). 

18
Hoffman, G.L., Fishman, M.J., and Garbarino, J.R., 1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—In-bottle acid digestion of whole-water 

samples: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-225, 28 p. 

Isachsen, Y.W., Landing, Ed, Lauber, J.M., Rickard, L.V., and Rogers, W.B., eds., 2000, Geology 

of New York--A simplified account (2nd ed.): Albany, N.Y., New York State 

Museum/Geological Survey, 294 p. 

Lee, E.A. and Strahan, A.P., 2003, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey Organic 

Geochemistry Research Group—Determination of acetamide herbicides and their degradations 

products in water using online solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-173, 17 p. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1994, Biennial report--Rotating 

intensive basin studies water quality assessment program 1991-1992: Albany, N.Y., 280 p. 

New York State Department of Health, 1998, New York State Health Department public water 

systems regulations: Albany, N.Y. [variously paged]. 

Nystrom, E.A., 2006, Ground-water quality in the Lake Champlain Basin, New York, 2004: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1088, 22 p. (online only). 

Patton, C.J. and Truitt, E.P., 2000, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of ammonium plus organic nitrogen by a Kjeldahl 

digestion method and an automated photometric finish that includes digest cleanup by gas 

diffusion: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-170, 31 p. 

Sandstrom, M.W., Stroppel, M.E., Foreman, W.T., and Schroeder, M.P., 2001, Methods of analysis 

by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of moderateuse pesticides and selected degradates in water by C-18 solid-phase extraction and gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 01-4098, 70 p. 

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 p. 

Struzeski, T.M., DeGiacomo, W.J., and Zayhowski, E.J., 1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of dissolved aluminum 

and boron in water by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-149, 17 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983, Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes: 

Washington D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and 

Support Laboratory Office of Research and Development, EPA 600/4-79-020, p. 420.2-1--5. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Guidelines for preparation of the comprehensive 

state water quality assessments (305(b) Reports) and electronic updates: Washington D.C., U.S. 

19
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-B-97-002A and EPA 841-B-97-

002B, PL95-217, 271 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Proposed radon in drinking water rule: Washington 

D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 815-F-99-006, 6 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, National primary drinking water standards and 

national secondary drinking water standards: Washington D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, EPA 816-F-03-016, 6 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Test methods for evaluating solid waste, 

physical/chemical methods: EPA SW-846, p. 9060A1--5. 

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-

A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. 

Vogelmann, J.E., Howard, S.M., Yang, L., Larson, C. R., Wylie, B. K., and Van Driel, J. N., 2001, 

Completion of the 1990’s National Land Cover Data Set for the conterminous United States, 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 67, p. 650-662. 

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., eds., April 2004, Processing of water 

samples (version 2.1): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 9, chap. A5, accessed 1/11/07 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A5/. 

Zaugg, S.D., Sandstrom, M.W., Smith, S.G., and Fehlberg, K.M., 1995, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of pesticides in 

water by C-18 solid-phase extraction and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry with selected-ion monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-181, 60 

p. 

20
 Table 1. Wells from which ground-water samples were collected in the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06. 

[Well locations are shown in figures 2 and 3; Physiographic regions: V, St. Lawrence Valley; Land-cover categories: M, Adirondack Mountains; D, 

developed; A, agricultural; F, forested; W, wetlands and open water; <, less than; --, unknown] 

Land cover2, percentage 

by category3

Well 

number1

Bedrock 

type 

Date 

sampled 

Well depth, 

feet below 

land surface 

Casing 

depth, 

feet Well type 

Physiographic 

region D A F W 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 10/3/2005 114 114 Domestic M 5 27 57 12 

F318 9/1/2005 64 64 Domestic V 0 31 68 0 

F529 8/23/2005 125 125 Domestic V 0 61 39 0 

F543 8/24/2005 90 78 Domestic M 12 2 79 7 

F573 1/12/2006 236 152 Production M 1 2 97 0 

ST366 8/30/2005 27 < 20 Production V 0 8 90 2 

ST378 8/30/2005 56 65 Production V 9 5 76 11 

ST1984 9/28/2005 90 90 Domestic V 0 2 93 4 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 9/1/2005 100 33 Domestic V 0 30 65 5 

J175 9/28/2005 125 -- Production V 5 60 33 2 

J177 11/21/2005 450 -- Production V 16 11 66 7 

ST950 9/12/2005 380 -- Production V 25 14 26 35 

ST1415 8/24/2005 250 50-100 Production V 25 33 39 3 

ST1421 9/27/2005 300 33 Production V 38 23 35 5 

ST1818 8/31/2005 132 14 Domestic V 0 29 65 6 

ST2349 10/3/2005 115 73 Domestic V 0 43 51 6 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 Sandstone 8/23/2005 220 70 Domestic V 6 20 27 47 

H336 Crystalline 8/22/2005 500 21 Domestic M 6 1 34 59 

J621 Crystalline 8/31/2005 100 25 Domestic V 0 39 61 1 

L176 Crystalline 9/13/2005 235 35 Production V 17 3 78 2 

ST1420 Crystalline 9/13/2005 273 51 Production V 6 32 61 0 

ST1720 Crystalline 10/4/2005 200 70 Domestic M 2 5 74 19 

ST1773 Crystalline 9/14/2005 93 10 Domestic V 0 8 73 19 

ST1855 Sandstone 9/29/2005 71 15 Domestic V 4 28 29 39 

ST2136 Crystalline 8/25/2005 260 54 Production M 5 4 60 31 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

2

 Land cover by category within a 0.5-mile radius of the well, determined from the National Land Cover Data 1992. 

3

 Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. 

21
Table 2. Constituents analyzed for but not detected in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-

06. 

[All values are in micrograms per liter] 

USGS 

parameter 

code Compound 

Laboratory 

reporting 

level 

Trace Elements 

71900 Mercury 0.01 

01077 Silver .16 

01059 Thallium .2 

Pesticides 

50470 2,4-D methyl ester .016 

39732 2,4-D .04 

38746 2,4-DB .02 

82660 2,6-Diethylaniline .006 

62850 2-[(2-Ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-2-

oxoethanesulfonic acid .02 

63781 2-Chloro-N-(2,6-

diethylphenyl)acetamide .02 

63782 2-Chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-

methylphenyl)acetamide .02 

50355 2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-

ethylamino-s-triazine .032 

49308 3-Hydroxy carbofuran .008 

50295 3-Ketocarbofuran .02 

61029 Acetochlor ethanesulfonic acid .02 

61030 Acetochlor oxanilic acid .02 

62847 Acetochlor sulfynilacetic acid .02 

49260 Acetochlor .006 

49315 Acifluorfen .028 

61031 Alachlor oxanilic acid .02 

62848 Alachlor sulfynilacetic acid .02 

46342 Alachlor .005 

49313 Aldicarb sulfone .02 

49314 Aldicarb sulfoxide .022 

49312 Aldicarb .04 

34253 alpha-HCH .005 

39632 Atrazine .007 

82686 Azinphos-methyl .050 

50299 Bendiocarb .02 

82673 Benfluralin .010 

50300 Benomyl .022 

61693 Bensulfuron .02 

38711 Bentazon .01 

04029 Bromacil .02 

49311 Bromoxynil .03 

04028 Butylate .004 

49310 Carbaryl .02 

82680 Carbaryl .041 

49309 Carbofuran .016 

82674 Carbofuran .020 

USGS 

parameter 

code Compound 

Laboratory 

reporting 

level 

Pesticides—Continued 

61188 Chloramben methyl ester .02 

50306 Chlorimuron .032 

04039 Chlorodiamino-s-triazine .04 

49306 Chlorothalonil .04 

38933 Chlorpyrifos .005 

82687 cis-Permethrin .006 

49305 Clopyralid .02 

04041 Cyanazine .018 

04031 Cycloate .01 

49304 Dacthal monoacid .03 

82682 DCPA .003 

63778 Dechloroacetochlor .02 

63777 Dechloroalachlor .02 

63779 Dechlorodimethenamid .02 

63780 Dechlorometolachlor .02 

62170 Desulfinyl fipronil .012 

39572 Diazinon .005 

38442 Dicamba .04 

49302 Dichlorprop .03 

39381 Dieldrin .009 

61951 Dimethenamid ethanesulfonic acid .02 

62482 Dimethenamid oxanilic acid .02 

61588 Dimethenamid .02 

49301 Dinoseb .04 

04033 Diphenamid .01 

82677 Disulfoton .02 

49300 Diuron .01 

82668 EPTC .004 

82663 Ethalfluralin .009 

82672 Ethoprop .005 

49297 Fenuron .02 

62169 Desulfinylfipronil amide .029 

62167 Fipronil sulfide .013 

62168 Fipronil sulfone .024 

62166 Fipronil .016 

61952 Flufenacet ethanesulfonic acid .02 

62483 Flufenacet oxanilic acid .02 

62481 Flufenacet .02 

61694 Flumetsulam .04 

38811 Fluometuron .02 

04095 Fonofos .003 

63784 Hydroxyacetochlor .02 

22
Table 2. Constituents analyzed for but not detected in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-

06.—Continued 

[All values are in micrograms per liter] 

USGS 

parameter 

code Compound 

Laboratory 

reporting 

level 

Pesticides—Continued 

63783 Hydroxyalachlor .02 

64045 Hydroxydimethenamid .02 

63785 Hydroxymetolachlor .02 

50356 Imazaquin .04 

50407 Imazethapyr .04 

61695 Imidacloprid .020 

39341 Lindane .004 

82666 Linuron .035 

39532 Malathion .027 

38482 MCPA .03 

38487 MCPB .01 

50359 Metalaxyl .01 

38501 Methiocarb .010 

49296 Methomyl .020 

82667 Methyl parathion .015 

61044 Metolachlor oxanilic acid .02 

39415 Metolachlor .006 

82630 Metribuzin .006 

61697 Metsulfuron .03 

82671 Molinate .003 

61692 N-(4-Chlorophenyl)-N'-methylurea .04 

82684 Napropamide .007 

49294 Neburon .01 

50364 Nicosulfuron .04 

49293 Norflurazon .02 

49292 Oryzalin .01 

38866 Oxamyl .03 

34653 p,p'-DDE .003 

39542 Parathion .010 

82669 Pebulate .004 

82683 Pendimethalin .022 

82664 Phorate .011 

49291 Picloram .03 

82676 Propyzamide .004 

62766 Propachlor ethanesulfonic acid .05 

62767 Propachlor oxanilic acid .02 

04024 Propachlor .025 

82679 Propanil .011 

82685 Propargite .02 

49236 Propham .030 

50471 Propiconazole .01 

38538 Propoxur .008 

38548 Siduron .02 

USGS 

parameter 

code Compound 

Laboratory 

reporting 

level 

Pesticides—Continued 

04035 Simazine .005 

50337 Sulfometuron .038 

82670 Tebuthiuron .02 

82665 Terbacil .034 

04032 Terbacil .016 

82675 Terbufos .02 

82681 Thiobencarb .010 

82678 Triallate .006 

49235 Triclopyr .03 

82661 Trifluralin .009 

Volatile organic compounds in unfiltered water 

34506 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .1 

77652 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane .1 

34496 1,1-Dichloroethane .1 

34501 1,1-Dichloroethene .1 

34536 1,2-Dichlorobenzene .1 

32103 1,2-Dichloroethane .2 

34541 1,2-Dichloropropane .1 

34566 1,3-Dichlorobenzene .1 

34571 1,4-Dichlorobenzene .1 

34030 Benzene .1 

32101 Bromodichloromethane .1 

34301 Chlorobenzene .1 

77093 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene .1 

32105 Dibromochloromethane .2 

34423 Dichloromethane .2 

81576 Diethyl ether .2 

81577 Diisopropyl ether .2 

34371 Ethylbenzene .1 

50005 Methyl tert-pentyl ether .2 

77135 o-Xylene .1 

77128 Styrene .1 

50004 Ethyl tert-Butyl ether .1 

34475 Tetrachloroethene .1 

32102 Tetrachloromethane .2 

34546 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene .1 

32104 Tribromomethane .2 

39180 Trichloroethene .1 

34488 Trichlorofluoromethane .2 

39175 Vinyl chloride .2 

32730 Total phenolic compounds 4 

23
Table 3. Physical properties of ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06. 

[Pt-Co platinum-cobalt; mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm @ 25°C, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees 

Celsius; (00080), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; --, not analyzed; <, less than] 

Well 

number1

Color, 

filtered, 

Pt-Co units 

(00080) 

Air 

pressure, 

mm Hg 

(00025) 

Dissolved 

oxygen, 

mg/L 

(00300) 

pH, 

standard 

units 

(00400) 

Specific 

conductance, 

μS/cm @ 25°C

(00095) 

Water 

temperature, 

degrees Celsius 

(00010) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 2 732 11.6 7.9 113 8.3 

F318 8 746 .3 7.9 281 9.7 

F529 5 742 .1 7.7 324 9.3 

F543 5 730 -- 7.62

99 9.4 

F573 2 725 8.8 7.9 208 7.3 

ST366 <1 739 9.7 7.3 389 8.8 

ST378 <1 737 9.2 7.8 191 9.2 

ST1984 <1 746 .1 8.0 254 10.7 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 2 748 .3 7.1 1,830 9.4 

J175 <1 755 4.9 7.0 760 9.2 

J177 2 744 1.3 7.1 1,460 10.1 

ST950 <1 756 1.2 7.3 613 9.2 

ST1415 2 759 -- 7.42664 10.2 

ST1421 10 754 .4 7.2 364 10.2 

ST1818 <1 737 2.2 7.0 656 10.2 

ST2349 2 759 .1 7.5 438 9.9 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 10 730 1.9 7.3 446 9.2 

H336 <1 711 .8 7.5 155 8.4 

J621 12 734 3.9 6.8 314 10.5 

L176 <1 741 3.5 7.4 317 8.9 

ST1420 <1 743 4.8 7.5 327 9.5 

ST1720 2 730 7.4 7.4 115 8.4 

ST1773 2 749 3.0 6.9 465 10.7 

ST1855 10 740 3.7 6.8 584 12.2 

ST2136 2 727 -- 7.92 594 9.4 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

2

 Samples not analyzed in the field for dissolved oxygen or pH because of instrument malfunction; laboratory pH value is shown instead. 

24
Table 4. Concentrations of major ions in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06. 

[ANC, Acid-neutralizing capacity; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; (90410), USGS National Water Information System 

parameter code; --, not analyzed; <, less than; E, estimated value. Bold text indicates sample exceeds water quality standards] 

Well 

number1

ANC, 

unfiltered, 

mg/L as CaCO3

(90410) 

Alkalinity, 

filtered, 

mg/L as CaCO3

(29801) 

Hardness, 

filtered, 

mg/L as CaCO3

(00900) 

Noncarbonate 

hardness, 

filtered, 

mg/L as CaCO3

(00905) 

Calcium, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00915) 

Magnesium, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00925) 

Potassium, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00935) 

Sand and gravel wells

CL723 83 83 82 -- 23.5 5.68 0.55 

F318 134 215 140 -- 38.1 11.7 .97 

F529 116 145 170 22 38.8 17.0 2.36 

F543 33 33 42 9 11.1 3.40 .66 

F573 89 91 99 9 27.3 7.56 .66 

ST366 142 124 200 80 47.9 20.5 .83 

ST378 86 86 94 8 24.5 8.08 .91 

ST1984 108 108 120 13 27.6 12.8 .49 

Carbonate bedrock wells

F856 173 169 490 320 117 48.5 2.13 

J175 195 105 400 300 105 33.7 3.17 

J177 165 132 800 670 255 40.2 3.17 

ST950 206 206 260 58 55.1 30.7 3.70 

ST1415 122 162 310 150 91.3 20.7 1.73 

ST1421 118 118 150 28 33.6 15.1 1.60 

ST1818 180 169 340 170 85.2 30.1 9.15 

ST2349 223 200 210 14 30.7 33.5 2.57 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells

CL1182 112 117 230 110 69.7 12.9 3.62 

H336 74 74 67 -- 22.5 2.51 .37 

J621 146 115 170 52 47.9 11.6 .92 

L176 128 137 150 17 47.6 8.68 .99 

ST1420 145 140 170 32 41.0 16.8 .79 

ST1720 41 41 50 9 15.2 2.89 2.36 

ST1773 130 130 170 44 49.3 12.3 1.00 

ST1855 221 177 240 65 61.5 21.4 2.82 

ST2136 83 83 220 140 62.0 16.1 2.14 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

25
Table 4. Concentrations of major ions in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06.—

Continued 

[ANC, Acid-neutralizing capacity; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; (90410), USGS National Water Information System 

parameter code; --, not analyzed; <, less than; E, estimated value. Bold text indicates sample exceeds water quality standards] 

Well 

number1

Sodium, 

filtered, 

mg/L(00930) 

Bicarbonate2, 

filtered, 

mg/L(29805) 

Chloride, 

filtered, 

mg/L(00940) 

Fluoride, 

filtered, 

mg/L(00950) 

Silica, 

filtered, 

mg/L(00955) 

Sulfate, 

filtered, 

mg/L(00945) 

Residue on 

evaporation, 

filtered, 

mg/L(70300) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 1.50 101 0.47 <0.1 10.5 6.8 101 

F318 6.90 262 .99 .1 14.8 14.5 177 

F529 4.36 177 1.43 .2 24.6 26.5 197 

F543 2.59 40 3.32 E.1 14.4 7.4 73 

F573 3.24 111 6.26 E.1 9.76 9.5 110 

ST366 4.80 151 8.55 <.1 9.13 17.8 221 

ST378 2.50 105 3.48 E.1 10.2 9.4 112 

ST1984 3.98 132 .74 .1 11.4 27.9 151 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 167 206 386 E.1 9.87 41.4 997 

J175 91.1 128 213 .4 9.60 50.6 713 

J177 34.9 161 59.4 .8 15.8 501 1,130 

ST950 25.6 251 30.0 .6 12.7 49.8 359 

ST1415 24.9 198 49.7 <.1 7.83 36.1 392 

ST1421 16.0 144 28.6 .2 6.52 26.4 210 

ST1818 10.8 206 8.57 1.1 14.5 33.4 381 

ST2349 15.0 244 4.21 .4 14.0 21.0 259 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 5.36 143 21.9 E.1 8.15 14.1 264 

H336 7.39 90 1.00 1.5 12.5 4.5 100 

J621 4.72 140 2.53 .2 12.1 16.6 180 

L176 7.23 167 10.3 .2 11.1 15.6 186 

ST1420 1.71 171 .53 .2 10.5 15.6 178 

ST1720 3.88 50 8.19 .3 14.8 8.4 85 

ST1773 27.6 159 53.8 .4 13.6 23.4 263 

ST1855 20.8 216 39.3 .6 11.9 33.0 348 

ST2136 21.6 101 124 .4 13.9 19.0 411 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

2

 Bicarbonate values calculated from alkalinity. 

26
Table 5. Concentrations of nutrients and organic carbon in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 

2005-06. 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, Phosphorus; (00623), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; <, less than; E, 

estimated value] 

Well 

number1

Ammonia plus 

organic-N, 

filtered, 

mg/L as N 

(00623) 

Ammonia, 

filtered, 

mg/L as N 

(00608) 

Nitrate plus 

nitrite, 

filtered, 

mg/L as N 

(00631) 

Nitrite, 

filtered, 

mg/L as N 

(00613) 

Orthophosphate, 

filtered, 

mg/L as P 

(00671) 

Total organic 

carbon, 

unfiltered, 

mg/L 

(00680) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 <0.10 <0.04 0.20 <0.008 0.04 <1.0 

F318 .60 .51 <.06 <.008 .19 2.1 

F529 <.10 <.04 <.06 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

F543 <.10 <.04 .93 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

F573 E.07 <.04 .23 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

ST366 E.07 <.04 3.45 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

ST378 E.09 <.04 .17 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

ST1984 <.10 <.04 <.06 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 E.05 <.04 .09 E.004 <.02 1.1 

J175 E.06 <.04 .31 <.008 <.02 1.3 

J177 E.10 <.04 .37 <.008 <.02 1.2 

ST950 .21 .12 <.06 <.008 <.02 1.1 

ST1415 <.10 <.04 .38 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

ST1421 .15 E.03 <.06 <.008 <.02 2.7 

ST1818 .12 <.04 2.42 <.008 <.04 1.5 

ST2349 E.08 .06 <.06 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 E.10 <.04 <.06 <.008 <.02 2.2 

H336 <.10 <.04 .07 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

J621 E.06 <.04 <.06 <.008 <.04 1.3 

L176 <.10 <.04 .64 <.008 <.02 1.1 

ST1420 <.10 <.04 .12 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

ST1720 <.10 <.04 .38 <.008 .02 <1.0 

ST1773 .13 <.04 .83 <.008 <.02 2.2 

ST1855 .19 .06 <.06 <.008 <.02 4.2 

ST2136 <.10 <.04 <.06 <.008 <.02 <1.0 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

27
Table 6. Concentrations of trace elements and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, 2005-06. 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; (01105), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; E, estimated value; <, less than; M, presence 

verified but not quantified. Bold text indicates sample exceeds water quality standards] 

Well 

number1

Aluminum, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01105) 

Antimony, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01097) 

Arsenic, 

unfiltered,

μg/L 

(01002) 

Barium, 

unfiltered,

μg/L 

(01007) 

Beryllium,

unfiltered,

μg/L 

(01012) 

Boron, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(01020) 

Cadmium, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01027) 

Chromium,

unfiltered,

μg/L 

(01034) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 3 <0.2 E0.10 30 <0.06 E4.0 <0.04 1.0 

F318 E1 <.2 <.12 70 <.06 11 <.04 .17 

F529 151 <.2 1.9 28 <.06 7.4 <.04 E.6 

F543 4 <.2 E.09 7 <.06 E6.8 E.02 .43 

F573 3 <.2 .46 18 <.06 E4.2 <.04 .98 

ST366 E2 <.2 E.10 43 <.06 12 <.04 .69 

ST378 E1 <.2 .16 46 <.06 7.2 <.04 .36 

ST1984 4 <.2 1.8 42 E.03 E4.2 <.04 .48 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 10 E.1 .41 237 <.06 14 E.02 .19 

J175 3 <.2 .13 127 E.04 198 <.04 .52 

J177 E1 <.2 .21 63 <.06 356 <.04 .50 

ST950 <2 <.2 .28 97 <.06 132 <.04 .11 

ST1415 <2 <.2 .15 90 <.06 16 <.04 .26 

ST1421 28 <.2 .36 64 <.06 27 <.04 .47 

ST1818 11 E.1 .15 82 <.06 69 <.04 .25 

ST2349 69 <.2 3.1 94 <.06 28 <.04 .80 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 3 <.2 .27 156 <.06 9.9 <.04 E.6 

H336 3 <.2 <2 M <.06 22 <.04 <.8 

J621 3,250 .3 6.2 134 1.14 14 .11 3.4 

L176 <2 E.1 .19 41 <.06 39 <.04 .15 

ST1420 <2 E.1 .19 51 <.06 14 <.04 .32 

ST1720 2 <.2 .27 M <.06 7.3 <.04 1.1 

ST1773 5 <.2 .20 228 E.03 22 <.04 .22 

ST1855 75 E.1 1.7 70 .19 118 .05 .72 

ST2136 <2 <.2 .19 3 <.06 19 <.04 .37 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

28
Table 6. Concentrations of trace elements and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, 2005-06.—Continued 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; (01105), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; E, estimated value; <, less than; M, presence 

verified but not quantified. Bold text indicates sample exceeds water quality standards] 

Well 

number1

Cobalt, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L (01037) 

Copper, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L (01042) 

Iron, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(01046) 

Iron, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L (01045)

Lead, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L (01051)

Lithium, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L (01132)

Manganese, 

filtered, μg/L 

(01056) 

Manganese, 

 unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01055) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 0.072 5.7 <6 184 0.17 <0.6 <0.6 2.5 

F318 .095 1.8 127 144 .26 .9 92.9 90.0 

F529 .224 .7 51 765 .18 3.3 18.2 25.5 

F543 .063 71.6 7 37 .22 .8 3.4 2.8 

F573 .076 12.0 <6 <6 <.06 1.0 <.6 <.6 

ST366 .195 1.9 <6 <6 E.04 .7 <.6 <.6 

ST378 .088 .8 <6 E4 1.41 E.6 <.6 <.6 

ST1984 .099 E.4 132 190 E.04 1.3 4.9 5.7 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 .521 1.8 10 161 .42 2.2 35.8 35.5 

J175 .335 1.9 <6 11 .08 35.1 E.5 1.0 

J177 .788 3.8 24 28 <.06 11.7 27.0 28.2 

ST950 .210 1.6 48 49 E.03 21.6 7.7 8.1 

ST1415 .271 1.9 12 18 .14 1.4 3.7 4.1 

ST1421 .199 2.5 47 153 .50 3.1 19.0 21.5 

ST1818 .423 4.0 <6 41 1.25 5.2 1.7 14.3 

ST2349 .393 1.8 260 710 11.8 8.8 31.1 32.4 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 .334 1.6 57 399 .70 1.3 385 419 

H336 .061 .9 9 E6 E.04 24.9 1.2 1.6 

J621 4.47 21.4 189 45,5002 9.80 4.8 137 239 

L176 .140 1.6 <6 <6 .14 9.0 <.6 <.6 

ST1420 .143 9.9 <6 E4 E.03 2.1 <.6 <.6 

ST1720 E.026 4.4 6 44 .08 1.9 <.6 .8 

ST1773 .154 7.0 <6 11 .19 3.0 E.4 E.4 

ST1855 .828 2.6 962 3,530 6.76 12.0 140 137 

ST2136 .141 <.6 <6 20 E.05 6.8 3.8 3.7 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 2

 This concentration is very high and is probably due to the presence of sediment in the well water.

29
Table 6. Concentrations of trace elements and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, 2005-06.—Continued 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; (01105), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; E, estimated value; <, less than; M, presence 

verified but not quantified. Bold text indicates sample exceeds water quality standards] 

Well 

number1

Molybdenum, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01062) 

Nickel, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01067) 

Selenium, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01147) 

Strontium, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01082) 

Zinc, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(01092) 

Radon-222, 

unfiltered, 

picoCuries 

per liter 

(82303) 

Uranium, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(28011) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 0.3 0.39 <0.08 60.4 4 210 0.258 

F318 .9 .54 <.08 302 <2 240 E.007 

F529 1.1 1.83 E.3 156 <2 150 1.16 

F543 E.2 .56 <.4 27.8 E1 860 .042 

F573 .7 .29 .10 73.4 E1 430 .314 

ST366 E.2 1.27 <.4 57.1 9 400 .218 

ST378 .5 .56 <.4 35.0 4 680 .285 

ST1984 1.7 .68 <.08 77.6 <2 160 .207 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 4.2 3.77 .24 167 3 600 1.57 

J175 .5 2.45 .16 4,500 4 830 .690 

J177 1.4 6.15 E.06 4,530 114 260 1.40 

ST950 1.4 1.04 <.08 2,160 E1 150 .133 

ST1415 1.4 1.54 <.4 179 3 1,220 .895 

ST1421 3.0 .98 <.08 312 E1 200 .222 

ST1818 .9 2.56 E.4 226 E1 2,620 4.12 

ST2349 3.2 1.03 <.08 606 10 1,820 .652 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 2.3 2.48 .4 231 E2 130 .097 

H336 4.8 .61 E.3 161 E1 18,800 90.6 

J621 .8 6.97 .55 117 29 250 2.93 

L176 .7 1.06 E.2 684 5 280 .527 

ST1420 .8 .83 E.2 107 5 1,040 2.29 

ST1720 1.7 E.13 .09 36.7 <2 880 .578 

ST1773 3.1 1.03 1.0 87.0 <2 11,100 16.1 

ST1855 2.1 1.65 E.06 1,490 42 3,210 5.28 

ST2136 3.4 .76 E.2 413 23 710 4.55 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

30
Table 7. Concentrations of pesticides and caffeine detected in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River 

Basin, 2005-06. 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; CIAT, 2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine; CEAT, 2-chloro-6-ethylamino-4-amino-s-triazine; ESA, 

ethanesulfonic acid; SA, secondary amide; (04040), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; <, less than; E, estimated value] 

Well 

number1

CIAT, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(04040) 

CEAT, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(04038) 

Alachlor 

ESA SA, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(62849) 

Alachlor ESA, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(50009) 

Caffeine, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(50305) 

Metolachlor 

ESA, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(61043) 

Prometon, 

filtered, 

μg/L 

(04037) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 <0.006 <0.08 <0.02 <0.02 <0.018 <0.02 <0.01 

F318 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

F529 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

F543 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

F573 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST366 E.011 E.01 .02 .36 E.016 <.02 <.01 

ST378 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 E.012 <.02 <.01 

ST1984 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

J175 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

J177 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST950 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST1415 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 .02 

ST1421 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST1818 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST2349 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

H336 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

J621 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

L176 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST1420 E.013 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 .03 <.01 

ST1720 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST1773 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 .02 <.01 

ST1855 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

ST2136 <.006 <.08 <.02 <.02 <.018 <.02 <.01 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

31
Table 8. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds detected in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence 

River Basin, 2005-06. 

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; (34668), USGS National Water Information System parameter code; <, less than; E, estimated value] 

Well 

number1

Dichlorodifluoromethane, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(34668) 

m- + p-Xylene, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(85795) 

Methyl tert-butyl 

ether, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(78032) 

Toluene, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(34010) 

Trichloromethane, 

unfiltered, 

μg/L 

(32106) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

F318 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

F529 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

F543 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

F573 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST366 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST378 <.2 <.2 .3 <.1 <.1 

ST1984 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

J175 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

J177 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 .2 

ST950 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST1415 <.2 <.2 E.1 <.1 <.1 

ST1421 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST1818 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST2349 <.2 E.1 <.2 .6 <.1 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 .4 

H336 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 .1 

J621 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

L176 <.2 <.2 .2 <.1 .5 

ST1420 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST1720 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST1773 E.5 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST1855 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

ST2136 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.1 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County. 

32
Table 9. Bacteria in ground-water samples from the St. Lawrence River Basin, 2005-06. 

[Coliform bacteria presence/absence in 100 mL of sample. CFU, colony forming units; mL, milliliter; (31684), USGS National Water Information 

System parameter code; >, greater than; <, less than. Bold text indicates sample exceeds water quality standards] 

Well 

number1 

Total Coliform, 

unfiltered, 

presence/ 

absence 

(31501) 

Fecal Coliform, 

unfiltered, 

presence/ 

absence 

(31625) 

Escherichia 

coli, unfiltered, 

presence/ 

absence 

(50278) 

Heterotrophic 

plate count, 

unfiltered, 

CFU/mL

(78943) 

Sand and gravel wells 

CL723 Negative Negative Negative 69 

F318 Negative Negative Negative >150 

F529 Negative Negative Negative 6 

F543 Negative Negative Negative 10 

F573 Negative Negative Negative 14 

ST366 Negative Negative Negative 8 

ST378 Negative Negative Negative <1 

ST1984 Negative Negative Negative <1 

Carbonate bedrock wells 

F856 Negative Negative Negative 15 

J175 Positive Positive Positive 26 

J177 Negative Negative Negative <1 

ST950 Negative Negative Negative <1 

ST1415 Negative Negative Negative 6 

ST1421 Positive Positive Positive 76 

ST1818 Positive Positive Positive >150 

ST2349 Negative Negative Negative 43 

Sandstone and crystalline bedrock wells 

CL1182 Negative Negative Negative 11 

H336 Negative Negative Negative 4 

J621 Negative Negative Negative 6 

L176 Negative Negative Negative <1 

ST1420 Negative Negative Negative <1 

ST1720 Negative Negative Negative 52 

ST1773 Negative Negative Negative 36 

ST1855 Negative Negative Negative <1 

ST2136 Negative Negative Negative 7 

1

 CL, Clinton County; F, Franklin County; H, Hamilton County; J, Jefferson County; L, Lewis County; ST, St. Lawrence County.

33
Ground-Water Quality in the St. Lawrence River Basin, New York, 2005-06—Open-File Report 2007-1066