Ground-Water Quality in the Upper 

Susquehanna River Basin, 

New York, 2004–05

By Kari K. Hetcher-Aguila and David A.V. Eckhardt

In cooperation with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Open-File Report 2006–1161

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

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

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 materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

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

New York, 2004–05: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1161, 21 p., online only.
iii

Contents

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

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Study Area..............................................................................................................................................3

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................3

Site Selection.........................................................................................................................................3

Sampling and Analytical Methods.....................................................................................................5

Ground-Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................6

Physical Properties...............................................................................................................................6

Nutrients ...................................................................................................................................7

Inorganic Ions........................................................................................................................................7

Metals and Radionuclides...................................................................................................................7

Pesticides...............................................................................................................................................7

Volatile Organic Compounds...............................................................................................................8

Bacteria..................................................................................................................................................8

Summary .........................................................................................................................................................8

References Cited ...........................................................................................................................................9

Figures

1. Location of upper Susquehanna River Basin in New York and of the 33 wells sampled 

in 2004–05................................................................................................................................................2

2. Surficial geology of the upper Susquehanna River Basin in New York and locations of 

the wells sampled in 2004–05 ..............................................................................................................4

Tables

1. Well information and physical properties of ground-water samples from selected 

wells in the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05 ..............................................12

2. Constituents for which ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, 

New York, were analyzed but not detected.....................................................................................11

3. Concentrations of nutrients, total organic carbon, and phenols in ground-water 

samples from upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05 ..........................................12

4. Concentrations of inorganic constitutents in ground-water samples from the upper 

Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05 ...............................................................................13

5. Concentrations of metals and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the upper 

Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05 ...............................................................................14

6. Concentrations of pesticides detected in the Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 

2004–05 ................................................................................................................................................16

7. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground-water samples from 

the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05.............................................................18

8. Concentrations of bacteria in unfiltered ground-water samples from the upper 

Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05 ..............................................................................19
iv

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3148 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square miles (mi2) 2.589 square kilometers (km2)

inch per year (in/yr) 2.54 centimeters per year (cm/yr)

gallon 3.78 liter (L)

gallons per minute (gal/min) 3.785 liters per minute (L/min)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (oC) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (oF) as follows:

oF = (1.8 × oC) + 32

Other abbreviations used in this report

micrometers (μm)

micrograms per liter (μg/L)

milligrams per liter (mg/L)

picocuries per liter (pCi/L)

microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 25 °C)

milliliter per minute (mL/min)

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL)

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Ground-Water Quality in the Upper Susquehanna River 

Basin, New York, 2004–05

By Kari K. Hetcher-Aguila and David A.V. Eckhardt

Abstract

Water samples were collected from 20 production 

wells and 13 private residential wells throughout the upper 

Susquehanna River Basin (upstream from the Pennsylvania 

border) during the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005 and 

analyzed to describe the chemical quality of ground water 

in the upper basin. Wells were selected to represent areas 

of greatest ground-water use and highest vulnerability to 

contamination, and to provide a representative sampling 

from the entire (4,516 square-mile) upper basin. Samples 

were analyzed for physical properties, nutrients, inorganic 

constituents, metals, radionuclides, pesticides, volatile organic 

compounds, and bacteria. 

The cations that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were calcium, magnesium, and sodium; the 

anions that were detected in the greatest concentrations 

were bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate. The predominant 

nutrient was nitrate, the concentrations of which were greater 

in samples from sand and gravel aquifers than in samples 

from bedrock. The metals barium, boron, cobalt, copper, and 

nickel were detected in every sample; the metals with the 

highest concentrations were barium, boron, iron, manganese, 

strontium, and lithium. The pesticide compounds detected 

most frequently were atrazine, deethylatrazine, alachlor ESA, 

and two degradation products of metolachlor (metolachlor 

ESA and metolachlor OA); the compounds detected in highest 

concentration were metolachlor ESA and OA. Volatile organic 

compounds were detected in 11 samples, and concentrations 

of 3 of these compounds exceeded 1 microgram per liter 

(μg/L). 

Several analytes were found in concentrations that 

exceeded Federal and New York State water-quality standards, 

which are typically identical. Chloride concentrations 

exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) 

of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in two samples, and 

sulfate concentrations exceeded the SMCL of 250 mg/L in 

one sample. Sodium concentrations exceeded the USEPA 

Drinking Water Advisory of 60 mg/L in six samples. Nitrate 

concentrations exceeded the USEPA Maximum Contaminant 

Level (MCL) of 10 mg/L in one sample and approached this 

limit (at 9.84 mg/L) in another sample. Barium concentrations 

exceeded the MCL of 2,000 μg/L in one sample. Iron 

concentrations exceeded the SMCL of 300 μg/L in five 

samples, and manganese concentrations exceeded the SMCL 

of 50 μg/L in 14 samples. Arsenic was detected in seven 

samples, and the MCL for arsenic (10 μg/L) was exceeded 

in two samples. Radon-222 exceeded the proposed MCL of 

300 picocuries per liter in 24 samples. Any detection of total 

coliform or fecal coliform bacteria is considered a violation of 

New York State health regulations; in this study, total coliform 

was detected in six samples; fecal coliform was detected in 

one sample, and Escherichia coli was not detected in any 

sample. 

Introduction

The upper Susquehanna River Basin encompasses 

4,516 mi2 in south-central New York north of the Pennsylvania 

border. The main valley of the Susquehanna River trends 

northeast-southwest and is about 1 mi wide in most places. 

The Susquehanna River Basin drains most of south-central 

New York and half of Pennsylvania and eventually flows 

into Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary (fig. 1). 

Concentrations of nutrients, sediment, and other constituents 

in Chesapeake Bay have increased over the past 50 years as 

a result of deforestation, growth of urban areas, poor land 

management, and water-treatment-plant effluent within its 

basin (Sprague, 2001; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1988; Bell and others, 1996; Belval and others, 1995; Belval 

and Sprague, 1999). In 2001, Hetcher and others (2003) 

described the chemical quality of base flow within a part of 

the upper Susquehanna River Basin, but a comprehensive 

assessment of the quality of ground water throughout the basin 

has been needed.

Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act 

Amendments of 1977 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1997) requires all states to undertake a comprehensive 

water-quality monitoring program for surface-water and 

ground-water resources. In 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey 

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

of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the 
Figure 1. Location of upper Susquehanna River Basin in New York and of the 33 wells sampled in 2004–05. (Well data 

are given in table 1.)

Norwich

Unadilla

Otselic River

Chenango

Cayuta Creek

Butternut Creek

Tioughnioga River

Otego Creek

Schenevus Creek

Ouleout

Charlotte Creek

Cherry Valley Creek

Genegantslet Creek

Creek

Catatonk Creek

Owego Creek

Nanticoke Creek

Susquehanna

River

River

Wharton River

Creek

Susquehanna River

DELAWARE

OTSEGO

ONEIDA

TIOGA

CAYUGA

BROOME

CHENANGO

MADISON

ONONDAGA

HERKIMER

TOMPKINS

CORTLAND

CHEMUNG

FULTON

OSWEGO

SENECA

SCHOHARIE

WAYNE

SCHUYLER

MONTGOMERY

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA

NEW

YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

MD

NJ

DELAWARE

Chesapeake Bay

Drainage Area

Upper Susquehanna River Basin

Study Area

Location Map

OD 8

OG 6

C 239

C 226

C 452

C 355

M 289

M 595

BM 90

CN 44

M 288

D 501

BM 330

TI 425

BM 375

BM 220

CN 869

CN 898

BM1080

OG 788

OG 311

CN1341

CN1126

OG 846

OG 504

OE2001

TI 351

OG 310

TI 461

TI 401

OD 1163

C 317

BM 208

Binghamton

Oneonta

Cortland

75°

43°

42°15’

76°30’

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

Chesapeake Bay

EXPLANATION

!

TI 425 Well finished in bedrock

 Well finished in sand and gravel

[county well numbers assigned 

by U.S. Geological Survey]

Base from U. S. Geological Survey, Digital Line Graph, 

1983, 1:100,000

0 100 200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

TI 425

   Ground-Water Quality in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), initiated an 

assessment of ground-water quality in river basins throughout 

the State, as specified in Section 305(b). As part of this 

program, a ground-water-quality study was conducted in the 

Mohawk River Basin during 2002, the Chemung River Basin 

during 2003, and the Lake Champlain Basin during 2004. 

As part of the cooperative program with NYSDEC, the 

USGS sampled ground water in the fall of 2004 and the spring 

of 2005 from selected aquifers within the upper Susquehanna 

River Basin (fig. 1) for chemical and bacteriological analysis. 

Sampling was done at production wells and private residential 

wells that tap sand and gravel aquifers and bedrock aquifers. 

The analytical results were compared with drinking- water 

standards established by the USEPA and New York State and 

used to define the pattern of ground-water quality throughout 

the study area. 

Study Area

The northernmost part of the study area is characterized 

by low relief and contains mostly farm land and wetlands, 

whereas the central and southern parts are characterized 

by moderate to high relief and a mixture of forested and 

farm land. The study area is predominantly rural, although 

it contains several small cities (Oneonta, Binghamton, 

Norwich, and Cortland [fig. 1]) and many scattered villages. 

Most of the developed areas are within the Susquehanna, 

Unadilla, Chenango, and Tioughnioga River valleys 

(fig. 1). Total population of the study area in 2000 was 

460,000 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000). Communitywater-supply systems provide water to more than 250,000 

people in the villages, towns, and cities within the study 

area (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Most 

of the water-supply systems use ground water, although 

some use surface water from reservoirs and lakes, and 

others use a combination of surface water and ground water. 

Most rural homeowners rely on ground water for their 

domestic water use.

During deglaciation of the region, thick deposits of 

glaciofluvial sand and gravel (deposited beneath, in front of, or 

alongside a glacier by meltwater streams) and glaciolacustrine 

clay, silt, and fine sand (deposited within proglacial lakes) 

were left within the valleys. As a result, glacially derived 

landforms are found within the valleys throughout the study 

area; these include valley trains of outwash, kames and kame 

terraces, eskers, kettles, and morainal valley plugs and ridges. 

Recent alluvium covers some of the glacial deposits and forms 

the flood plains of the larger streams and rivers. The glacial 

and fluvial deposits within the study area are described in 

detail by Randall (2001), Fleisher (1977a,b; 1986), MacNish 

and Randall (1982), and (Coates, 1966).

The most productive aquifers within the study area are 

the glaciofluvial deposits of sand and gravel (fig. 2). The 

glaciolacustrine deposits of sand, silt, and clay are relatively 

impermeable and yield little water to wells but may confine 

underlying aquifers. Bedrock aquifers are tapped for water use 

in areas where significant thicknesses of saturated sand and 

gravel are not available. The bedrock aquifers are relatively 

flat-lying, inter-bedded sedimentary units of shale and 

sandstone that extend throughout most of the study area; some 

carbonate-rock aquifers of limestone and dolostone are present 

but limited to a small area in the northern part of the basin.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the sampling and analytical methods 

used for, and presents the results of, the water-quality analyses 

conducted on ground-water samples from 33 wells throughout 

the upper Susquehanna River Basin. Results are given in 

tables 1–8 (at end of report). Analytical results for selected 

constituents are compared with drinking-water standards, 

which include Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 

and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) 

established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(1996; 2002; 2004; 2005) and New York State (1998a,b) .

Methods 

Water samples were collected from 13 private 

residential wells and 20 production wells and analyzed for 

202 constituents and 5 physical properties. The following 

paragraphs describe the criteria used to select these wells, 

the sampling methods used in the field, and the analytical 

methods. Three samples were collected for quality assurance 

(QA) and quality control (QC)−−one field blank and two 

replicate samples—as required for the Federal 305(b) 

program.

Site Selection

Residential wells were identified in the USGS GroundWater Site Inventory (GWSI) database and through the 

NYSDEC Water-Well Reporting Program. The Water-Well 

Reporting Program was implemented in 2000 to collect 

information about newly drilled wells throughout New York 

from licensed well drillers and was useful in locating wells 

suitable for ground-water studies. A letter was sent to the 

owner of each well that was identified as a potential sampling 

site. The letter described the project, requested permission 

to sample the water, and included a questionnaire asking the 

location of the well, the most convenient times for sampling, 

any safety concerns around the well, and other well-related 

information. Well owners who did not return the questionnaire 

received a phone call to ask permission to sample the well 

water and for other information about the well. Well owners 

who responded favorably to the questionnaire or called 

were contacted a week before sampling to establish the 

date and time.

Methods 
Figure 2. Surficial geology of the upper Susquehanna River Basin and locations of the wells sampled in 2004–05. 

(Well data are given in table 1.)

DELAWARE

OTSEGO

ONEIDA

TIOGA

CAYUGA

BROOME

CHENANGO

MADISON

ONONDAGA

HERKIMER

TOMPKINS

CORTLAND

CHEMUNG

FULTON

OSWEGO

SENECA

SCHOHARIE

WAYNE

SCHUYLER

MONTGOMERY

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

OD 8

OG 6

C 226 C 239

C 452

C 355

M 289

M 595

BM 90

CN 44

M 288

D 501

BM 330

TI 425

BM 375

BM 220

CN 869

CN 898 BM1080

OG 311

OG 788

CN 1341

CN1126

OG 846

OG 504

OE 2001

TI 351

OG 310

TI 461

TI 401

OD 1163

C 317

BM 208

75°

43°

42°15’

76°30’

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS TI 425

EXPLANATION

Swamp deposits

Bedrock

Till deposits

Kame deposits Water

Lacustrine sand, 

silt, and clay

WELL; number is county well number 

 assigned by U.S. Geological Survey

Alluvial, fluvial, and

glacial-outwash deposits

(sand and gravel)

Base from U. S. Geological Survey, Digital Line Graph, 

1983, 1:100,000

Geology modified from Cadwell and Muller, 1986

   Ground-Water Quality in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05
Production wells were identified in the GWSI database 

and through contact with local officials (including the 

Cortland County and Otsego County Departments of Health) 

and with water managers of villages and cities throughout the 

basin. The water managers were sent a project description 

and a questionnaire similar to those sent to residential-well 

owners. Telephone calls were made to well owners to clarify 

information about the wells and to arrange sampling dates. 

Site selection did not target specific municipalities, 

industries, or agricultural practices; rather, sample sites were 

selected to represent areas of greatest ground-water use 

and highest vulnerability to contamination, and to obtain 

a thorough geographical representation of the upper basin 

(fig. 2). Site selection included (1) wells finished in sand 

and gravel and wells finished in bedrock; (2) wells in the 

main valley of the Susquehanna, Unadilla, Chenango, and 

Tioughnioga Rivers, in the tributary valleys, and in the uplands 

surrounding the valleys; (3) wells in each of four predominant 

land-use categories­—agriculture, forest, urban, or mixed; and 

(4) public-supply and residential wells. 

The land-use classification was done through satelliteimage analysis to describe the predominant land uses within 

a half-mile radius of each well. Most (20 of the 33 well sites) 

were surrounded by a single land use that represented more 

than 50 percent of well-site area; the other 13 well sites 

contained a combination of the three land uses (table 1). Most 

of the wells finished in sand and gravel were in the valleys and 

ranged from 25 to 233 feet deep. The bedrock wells, which 

were generally in the uplands, ranged from 55 to 358 feet 

deep. The well data, land-use data, and water-quality physical 

properties are given in table 1.

Shallow wells that tap sand and gravel aquifers are 

susceptible to contamination by several types of compounds, 

including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, 

deicing chemicals, and nutrients from nearby highways and 

industrial, agricultural, and residential areas. The movement of 

these contaminants to the water table through the soils and the 

sand and gravel can be relatively rapid. Bedrock wells in the 

uplands are generally less susceptible to contamination from 

industrial and urban sources, which are mainly in the valleys; 

also, water movement in the bedrock is generally slower than 

in sand and gravel. The agricultural areas that surround most 

of the upland wells are a potential source of contamination 

from fertilizers, animal wastes, and domestic septic systems. 

In addition to manmade contaminants, all aquifers contain 

naturally derived minerals that may adversely affect water 

quality, such as sodium, chloride, iron, manganese, and trace 

elements, and some may also contain radon gas. 

Well categorization according to predominant land 

use within a half-mile radius of each well allows a general 

indication of potential types of manmade contamination; for 

example, water from wells surrounded mostly by agricultural 

land could have elevated concentrations of nutrients or 

pesticides, whereas water from wells surrounded by urban 

land (industrial, commercial, parks, or highways) might have 

elevated concentrations of chloride, VOCs, or pesticides. 

Water from wells surrounded by forested, undeveloped land, in 

contrast, tends to be relatively uncontaminated.

The assignment of land-use categories to a well does 

not always accurately denote the potential sources of 

contamination that may affect that well. For example, a well 

completed in sand and gravel adjacent to the Susquehanna 

River may pump river water, which may contain chemicals 

discharged to the river upstream from the site. Also, a 

well might yield water consisting of a mixture of recent 

precipitation and deeper water that might have entered the 

system tens to hundreds of years ago. Therefore, land-use 

descriptions at well sites provide only a general indication 

of the potential for contamination, and a single water-quality 

analysis cannot indicate whether a specific land use affects 

specific wells. Delineation of the flow paths and travel 

times of water at the sampled wells would require additional 

sampling and hydrogeologic analysis, which were beyond the 

scope of this study. 

Sampling and Analytical Methods

Water samples that were analyzed for nutrients (table 3), 

inorganic constituents (table 4), metals and radionuclides 

(table 5), and VOCs (table 7) were collected from every well 

and processed by methods described in the USGS manual 

for the collection of water-quality data (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2004). In addition, pesticide samples (table 6) were 

collected and processed by the methods of Shelton (1994) and 

Sandstrom and others (2001). These samples were analyzed 

at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) and 

the USGS Kansas Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory 

(OGRL) for 116 pesticides and pesticide degradates through 

methods described by Zaugg and others (1995), Meyer and 

others (1993), and Ferrer and others (1997). The analytical 

method devised by Zaugg and others (1995) was developed 

in cooperation with the USEPA and allows detection of the 

nation’s most commonly used pesticides. Samples for bacteria 

analyses (table 8) were collected and processed in accordance 

with NYSDEC and New York State Department of Health 

(NYSDOH) regulations. 

Sampling entailed the following steps: the well pump 

was turned on (many of the production wells were already 

running) and allowed to run about 20 minutes, or until at least 

five casing-volumes of well water had passed the sampling 

point. A raw-water spigot between the well and the pressure 

tank was opened, and the water was allowed to run for several 

more minutes to flush the spigot. During this time, a general 

visual evaluation of the area surrounding the sampling site was 

conducted to identify obvious potential nonpoint and point 

sources of contamination that could affect the well water. 

Samples were collected from the raw-water spigot to avoid all 

water-treatment systems and to ensure that the water collected 

was representative of the water in the aquifer. 

At each sampling site, a Teflon discharge line was 

connected to the spigot, and samples were analyzed with 

Methods    
a multiprobe meter for physical properties, including 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved-oxygen 

concentration, and pH. The water was run slowly enough 

(100 to 250 mL/min) for the water-quality sensors to react, yet 

fast enough to cause the pump in the well to run continuously 

(this sometimes required opening other faucets to waste). Once 

these properties had stabilized, a second Teflon discharge line 

was connected to the first with a stainless-steel quick-connect 

fitting, and the second line was directed into a samplingchamber bag mounted on a plastic box; this sample-collection 

chamber was used to minimize sample exposure to dust and 

other potential sources of contamination. The bottom of the 

sampling-chamber bag was pierced above a plastic funnel in 

the top of the box to allow water to run to waste for several 

minutes to flush the Teflon line. Bottles were filled within 

the chamber bag according to standard USGS field methods 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2004). 

Analyses for physical properties, most metals, 

radionuclides, and VOCs were conducted on unfiltered 

water samples (tables 1, 5, and 7) to obtain the wholewater concentrations. Concentrations of most nutrients, 

major inorganic constituents, three metals, and pesticides 

were obtained from filtered samples (tables 3, 4, 5, and 6). 

Unfiltered-water concentrations were compared with filtered 

concentrations to estimate the difference between the total 

and dissolved concentrations of some constituents. Sulfuric 

acid was added to some nutrient samples to prevent biologic 

degradation of the sample, and nitric acid was added to some 

metal samples to prevent constituent loss by precipitation. If a 

filtered sample was required for inorganic analytes, a 0.45-μm 

capsule filter was attached to the Teflon discharge line inside 

the sample chamber bag; pesticide samples were filtered in the 

laboratory through 0.7-μm plate filters.

All Teflon discharge lines were cleaned in the laboratory 

before each sampling day and in the field between each 

sample. New chamber bags were used at each sampling 

site. Samples for radon analysis were obtained through 

an in-line septum chamber with a disposable syringe to 

avoid atmospheric contamination. Samples for bacterial 

analysis were collected within the sampling chamber in 

sterile containers provided by the bacteriological laboratory; 

the connection of the sampling tube to the well tap was 

not sterilized. 

All samples were stored on ice in coolers and delivered 

directly or shipped by overnight delivery to one of four 

laboratories: (1) the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory 

in Denver, Colo., for analysis for nutrients (table 3), inorganic 

constituents (table 4), metals (table 5), some pesticides 

(table 6), and VOCs (table 7); (2) the USGS Kansas Organic 

Geochemical Research Laboratory in Lawrence, Kans., for 

other pesticides (table 6); (3) a New York State-certified 

private laboratory in Newburgh, N.Y., for total organic 

carbon and phenolic compounds (table 3); and (4) a local 

laboratory in Ithaca, N.Y., approved by New York State for 

bacteriological analysis (table 8).

Most well sites allowed easy access to a raw-water spigot 

that was not affected by treatment or pressure tanks. Twelve 

wells had the following unusual situations: (1) Eight wells 

(OG 310, D 501, M 288, BM 220, C 317, M 289, C 355, 

and BM 330, fig. 2) had no spigot, but rather had either a 

tube at the top of the well, or a kitchen faucet, from which a 

raw-water sample could be obtained. The Teflon sampling 

apparatus and chamber bags could not be used at these wells; 

therefore, the well pump was allowed to run for several 

minutes to flush the tube or faucet before the bottles were 

rinsed and filled. An extra 3-L Teflon bottle was filled, and 

samples that required filtration were filtered from this bottle 

with a peristaltic pump and clean silicone tubing. (2) Two 

wells (CN 869 and BM 90, fig. 2) did not have access to a rawwater sample because phosphate was injected into the well for 

the sequestering of manganese. (3) One well (OE 2001) had 

no spigot, but raw-water samples were collected from a pipe 

that discharged to a farm pond. (4) One well (OD 1163) did 

not have access to a raw, untreated sample because the owner’s 

water softener system interfered; therefore, the well casing 

was opened and the well was pumped with a peristaltic pump 

for 20 minutes while faucets inside the home were run to flush 

the well casing and cause the well pump to run. Clean silicone 

tubing was then used to draw water out of the well and into 

the sample chamber, from which samples were collected and 

filtered. 

Ground–Water Quality 

The 33 ground-water samples collected during this study 

were analyzed for 202 chemical constituents. Most (127) 

constituents were not detected in any samples (table 2); the 

concentrations of the 75 constituents that were detected are 

listed in tables 3–8. Concentrations of several constituents 

exceeded recommended MCLs or SMCLs set by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (1996) and New York State 

(1998a,b). 

The QA/QC field blank contained no constituent in 

concentrations above the laboratory reporting levels; this 

indicates that no constituents were affected by artificial 

contamination from the sampling or analytical procedures. 

The results of the two QA/QC replicate samples showed that 

variability in sample results met the precision requirements 

of the study. The largest percent differences between 

concentrations in a ground-water sample and the replicate 

sample were in acid-neutralizing capacity, residue on 

evaporation, and low-concentration metals (concentrations 

near or below the reporting level for the metals).

Physical Properties

 The pH of the samples (table 1) ranged from 7.1 to 9.1, 

and 7 of the 33 samples exceeded the accepted SMCL range 

of 6.5 to 8.5 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). 

 Ground-Water Quality in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05
Specific conductance of the samples (table 1) ranged from 

245 to 2,140 μS/cm. Water temperature (table 1) ranged from 

5.7 to 12.9°C. The color of two samples exceeded the SMCL 

of 15 (table 1).

Nutrients

Nitrate was the predominant nutrient in the ground-water 

samples (table 3); the concentrations ranged from less than 

0.06 (the analytical detection limit) to 10.5 mg/L as nitrogen 

(N). The nitrate MCL of 10 mg/L as N was exceeded in one 

sample and approached this limit (at 9.84 mg/L) in another 

sample. Samples from wells finished in sand and gravel had 

higher nitrate concentrations than those from wells finished 

in bedrock. 

Inorganic Ions

The cations that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were calcium, magnesium, and sodium 

(table 4). Calcium concentrations ranged from 13.0 to 

254 mg/L, and magnesium concentrations ranged from 

2.38 to 162 mg/L. Calcium and magnesium contribute to 

water hardness, and 32 of the 33 wells yielded water that 

is moderately hard to very hard (Hem, 1985). Sodium 

concentrations ranged from 2.5 to 275 mg/L, and six samples 

exceeded the USEPA Drinking Water Advisory, which 

recommends that sodium concentrations in drinking water not 

exceed 60 mg/L to minimize the taste. This recommendation 

is not federally enforceable but is intended as a guideline for 

States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).

The anions that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were bicarbonate (alkalinity), chloride, 

and sulfate. Alkalinity concentrations ranged from 94 to 

283 mg/L (as CaCO3), chloride concentrations ranged 

from 0.55 to 408 mg/L, and sulfate concentrations ranged 

from 1.0 to 1,120 mg/L (table 4). The chloride SMCL of 

250 mg/L was exceeded in two samples, and the sulfate SMCL 

of 250 mg/L was exceeded in one sample.

Metals and Radionuclides

The most commonly detected metals were barium, 

boron, cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, strontium, and uranium, 

all of which were detected in every sample. The metals 

detected in the highest concentrations were barium, boron, 

iron, manganese, strontium, and lithium (table 5). Barium 

concentrations ranged from 6 to 2,220 μg/L, and the MCL 

for barium (2,000 μg/L) was exceeded in one sample (well 

BM 1080, which is finished in bedrock). Boron concentrations 

ranged from 8.5 to 1,730 μg/L; cobalt concentrations ranged 

from 0.066 to 1.22 μg/L; and copper concentrations ranged 

from 0.3 to 34.3 μg/L. MCLs for boron or cobalt have not 

been established. The SMCL for copper (1,000 μg/L) was 

not exceeded in any sample. Dissolved iron was detected 

in 16 filtered samples at concentrations ranging from less 

than 6 to 1,230 μg/L, and the SMCL for iron (300 μg/L) 

was exceeded in five samples. Dissolved manganese was 

detected in 25 filtered samples at concentrations ranging from 

0.6 to 969 μg/L, and the SMCL for manganese (50 μg/L) 

was exceeded in 14 samples. Uranium was detected in every 

sample; concentrations ranged from 0.007 to 0.869 μg/L, but 

none exceeded the MCL of 30 μg/L. Arsenic was detected in 

7 samples, and the MCL for arsenic (10 μg/L) was exceeded 

in 2 samples (table 4); lead was detected in 32 samples, but the 

MCL (15 μg/L) was not exceeded.

Radon also was detected in every sample, and 

concentrations ranged from 60 to 1,490 pCi/L. The proposed 

MCL of 300 pCi/L for radon-222 in drinking water was 

exceeded in 24 samples, but the proposed Alternate Maximum 

Contaminant Level ACML) of 4,000 pCi/L was not exceeded 

in any sample. The AMCL is the proposed allowable 

concentration of radon in a raw-water sample from a drinkingwater system that has programs to address the health risks 

of radon in indoor air, but none of the 33 wells sampled had 

such a system. The proposed MCL and AMCL for radon are 

under review and have not been adopted (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2004).

Pesticides

Fifteen pesticides including three pesticide degradates 

were detected in water from 20 of the 33 wells (table 6). 

Most (17) of the samples containing pesticides were from 

sand and gravel aquifers; the other three samples were from 

bedrock aquifers. Caffeine, which is not a pesticide but is 

included in table 6 because it is measured as part of the 

pesticide analyses, was detected at trace levels in 22 samples. 

The pesticide compounds that were detected most frequently 

were the herbicides atrazine, deethylatrazine (a degradation 

product of atrazine), alachlor ESA (the ethanesulfonic 

acid degradate of alachlor), and metolachlor ESA and 

metolachlor OA (the ethanesulfonic acid and oxanilic acid 

degradation products of metolachlor). Atrazine was detected 

in five samples; the concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 

0.095 μg/L and did not exceed the MCL of 3 μg/L (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). Deethylatrazine 

(2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine) was 

detected in 11 samples at concentrations ranging from 

0.003 to 0.051 μg/L. Alachlor ESA was detected in 

11 samples at concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 0.16 μg/L. 

Metolachlor ESA was detected in 14 samples at concentrations 

ranging from 0.06 to 2.91 μg/L, and Metolachlor OA was 

detected in 7 samples at concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 

0.29 μg/L. No Federal MCLs currently have been established 

for deethylatrazine, alachlor ESA, metolachlor ESA, or 

metolachlor OA, and no pesticide concentration exceeded the 

New York State MCL of 50 μg/L (New York State, 1998a). 

These findings are similar to those reported by Eckhardt and 

Ground-Water Quality 
others (2001) and Phillips and others (1999) from studies of 

pesticides in ground water throughout New York State.

Volatile Organic Compounds

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected 

in 11 samples (table 7), and none of the concentrations 

exceeded MCLs. The compound 1,1,1-trichloroethane 

was detected in five samples, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene 

and trichloroethene were detected in four samples; no 

MCLs have yet been established for these compounds. 

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that 

can infiltrate into ground water from leaking fuel tanks, was 

not detected in any sample. No MCL has been established 

for MTBE, although the USEPA has suggested a limit of 

20 to 40 μg/L on the basis of taste and odor of drinking 

water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).

Bacteria

All samples were analyzed for total coliform, fecal 

coliform, and Escherichia coli (E. coli) (table 8). Total 

coliform was detected in six samples, and fecal coliform 

in one sample; E. coli was not detected in any sample. Any 

detection of total coliform or fecal coliform is considered 

a violation of New York State health regulations. Bacteria 

were detected in samples from sand and gravel and bedrock 

aquifers. Most of the production wells have chlorination 

systems that eliminate bacteria before the water is distributed 

to consumers, but private residential wells are generally 

not chlorinated. The results of this study indicate that some 

residential wells may contain high concentrations of bacteria.

Summary 

In 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

in cooperation with the New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), initiated an 

assessment of ground-water quality in river basins throughout 

the State. Water samples collected from 33 private and 

production wells throughout the upper Susquehanna River 

Basin in the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005 were analyzed 

for physical properties, nutrients, inorganic constituents, 

metals, radionuclides, VOCs, pesticides, and bacteria. Of the 

75 constituents that were detected, several exceeded Federal 

MCLs, SMCLs, and AMCLs. 

The cations that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were calcium, magnesium, and sodium; the 

anions that were detected in the highest concentrations were 

bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate. The predominant nutrient 

was nitrate. The SMCL for chloride was exceeded in two 

samples; the sodium Drinking Water Advisory was exceeded 

in six samples; the sulfate SMCL was exceeded in one sample; 

and the MCL for nitrate was exceeded in one sample.

The metals detected in the highest concentrations were 

barium, boron, iron, manganese, strontium, and lithium. The 

MCL for barium was exceeded in 1 sample; the SMCL for 

iron was exceeded in 5 samples; and the SMCL for manganese 

was exceeded in 14 samples. Uranium was detected in every 

sample, but no detections exceeded the MCL. Arsenic was 

detected in 7 samples, and the MCL for arsenic (10 μg/L) 

was exceeded in 2 samples; lead was detected in 32 samples, 

but the MCL (15 μg/L) was not exceeded. Radon also was 

detected in every sample; the proposed MCL for radon-222 in 

drinking water was exceeded in 24 samples, but the proposed 

AMCL was not exceeded in any sample. 

Of the 15 pesticides or pesticide degradates detected 

during this study, those detected most frequently were 

atrazine, deethylatrazine, alachlor ESA, metolachlor ESA, 

and metolachlor OA. The pesticide compounds detected at the 

highest concentrations were Metolachlor ESA and OA. Most 

(17) of the samples containing pesticides were from sand and 

gravel aquifers; the other three samples were from bedrock 

aquifers. No pesticide concentrations exceeded Federal or 

New York State MCLs, although Federal MCLs have not been 

established for deethylatrazine, alachlor ESA, metolachlor 

ESA, or metolachlor OA. 

VOCs were detected in 11 samples; most of the 

concentrations were at or near the detection limits, and no 

concentration exceeded an MCL. Bacteria were detected in 

water from bedrock as well as sand and gravel aquifers−−total 

coliform was detected in six samples and fecal coliform 

was detected in one sample, but E. coli was not detected in 

any sample.

References Cited 

Bell, C.F., Belval, D.L., and Camp bell, J.P., 1996, Trends 

in nutrients and suspended solids at the Fall Line of 

five tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, July 

1988 through June 1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96-4191, 37 p.

Belval, D.L., Campbell, J.P., Phillips, S.W., and Bell, C.F., 

1995, Water-quality characteristics of five tributaries 

to the Chesapeake Bay at the Fall Line, Virginia, July 

1988 through June 1993: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4258, 71 p. 

Belval, D.L., and Sprague, L.A., 1999, Monitoring nutrients 

in the major rivers draining to Chesapeake Bay: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4238, 8 p.

 Ground-Water Quality in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05
Cadwell, D.H., and Muller, E.H., 1986, Surficial geologic 

map of New York: New York State Museum—Geological 

Survey, Map and Chart Series 40, Finger Lakes Sheet, 

New York State Geological Survey, 1 sheet, scale 

1:250,000, digital compilation by Beckie Ugolini, 1998, 

from New York State Geological Survey 90 meter Digital 

Elevation Model.

Coates, D.R., 1966, Glaciated Appalachian Plateau—Till 

shadows on hills: Science, v. 152, p. 1617–1619.

Eckhardt, D.A., and Stackelberg, P.E., 1995, Relation of 

ground-water quality to land use of Long Island, New York: 

Ground Water, v. 33, no. 6, p. 1019–1033.

Eckhardt, D.A., Hetcher, K.K., Phillips, P.J., and Miller, 

T.S., 2001, Pesticides and their metabolites in community 

water-supply wells of central and western New York, 

August 1999: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4128, 12 p.

Ferrer, Imma, Thurman, E.M., Barcelo, Damia, 1997, 

Identification of ionic chloroacetanilide herbicide 

metabolites in surface and groundwater by HPLC/MS 

using negative ion spray: Analytical Chemistry, v. 69, p. 

4547–4553.

Fleisher, P.J., 1977a, Glacial geomorphology of upper 

Susquehanna drainage, in Wilson, P.C., ed., New York 

State Geological Association Guidebook: Oneonta, State 

University of New York, 49th Annual Meeting, p. A1–A10.

Fleisher, P.J., 1977b, Dead ice sinks and moats, environment 

of stagnant ice deposition: Geology, v. 14, p. 39–42.

Fleisher, P.J., 1986, Glacial geology and late Wisconsin 

stratigraphy, upper Susquehanna drainage basin, New York 

State, in Cadwell, D.H., ed. The Wisconsin stage of the first 

geological district, eastern New York: Albany, New York 

State Museum Bulletin 455, p. 121–142.

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, K.K., Miller, T.S., and Komor, S.C., 2003, Chemical 

quality of base flow in 18 selected streams in the Upper 

Susquehanna River Basin, New York: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4100, 

42 p.

MacNish, R.D., and Randall, A.D., 1982, Stratified-drift 

aquifers in the Susquehanna River Basin, New York: 

Albany, New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation Bulletin 75, 68 p.

Meyer, M.T., Mills, M.S., and Thurman, E.M., 1993, 

Automated solid-phase extraction of herbicides from water 

for gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric analysis: 

Journal of Chromatography, v. 629, p. 55–59.

New York State, 1998a, Water quality regulations for 

surface and groundwaters: New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Albany, N.Y., Title 6, chap. X 

(parts 703.5, table 1), 10 NYCRR Subpart 5–1, 4 p.

New York State, 1998b, Public water systems regulations: 

New York State Department of Health, Albany, N.Y. 

[effective March 12, 1998].

Phillips, P.J., Eckhardt, D.A., Terracciano, S.A., and 

Rosenmann, L.R., 1999, Pesticides and their metabolites in 

wells of Suffolk County, New York, 1998: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4095, 

12 p.

Randall, A.D., 2001, Hydrogeologic framework of stratifieddrift aquifers in the glaciated Northeastern United States: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1415-B, 179 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 moderate-use pesticides and 

selected degradates in water by C-18 solid-phase extraction 

and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: WaterResources Investigations Report 01-4098, 70 p.

Shelton, L.R., 1994, Field guide for collecting and processing 

stream-water samples for the National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 94-455, 42 p. 

Sprague, L.A., 2001, Effects of storm-sampling frequency 

on estimation of water-quality loads and trends in two 

tributaries to Chesapeake Bay in Virginia: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4136, 

38 p.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000, Census of population and 

housing, accessed July 2005, at http://www.empire.state.

ny.us/nysdc/ftp/popandhous/Census2000.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement, in Comprehensive research plan: An agreement 

commitment report from the Chesapeake Executive Council 

[variously paged].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Drinking water 

regulations and health advisories: Washington D.C., Office 

of Water, EPA 822-B-96-002, Oct. 1996, 11 p.

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., Office of Water, EPA 841-B-97-002A and 

EPA 841-B-97-002B, PL 95-217.

References Cited 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, Drinking-water 

advisory—Consumer acceptability advice and health effects 

analysis on sodium: Washington D.C., Office of Water, EPA 

822-R-02-032, 34 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Proposed radon 

in drinking water rule: Washington D.C., Office of Water, 

accessed May 14, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/

radon/proposal.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Local drinking 

water information system: Washington D.C., Office of 

Water, accessed July 6, 2005, at http://www.epa.gov/

safewater/dwinfo/ny.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Field methods, accessed 

October, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/owq.

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 with selective-ion 

monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95–181, 49 p.

10 Ground-Water Quality in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05
Tables 1–8
Table 1. Well information and physical properties of ground-water samples from selected wells in the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York

[mi, mile; mg/L, milligrams per liter; °C, degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microSiemens per centimeter at 25° C; 00080, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) paramet --, sample lost at lab; UNK, unknown.; <, less than. Well locations are shown in figure 1] 

Well data Water data

Well

 number 1

Type:

 P, public 

supply

R, private 

residential 

Location: 

U, uplands; 

V, valley flat

Aquifer:

SG, sand 

and gravel; 

B, bedrock 

Depth

(feet

 below 

land 

surface )

Casing 

depth 

(feet 

below 

land 

surface)

Land-use

 percentages 

within 0.5-mi 

radius of well:

 (f, forested;

 u, urban; 

 a, agricultural)

 Sample 

date

Water 

color, 

filtered, 

(platinum 

cobalt 

units)

(00080)

Dissolvedoxygen 

concentration, 

unfiltered 

(mg/L)

(00300)

pH, 

 field, 

unfiltered, 

(standard 

units)

(00400)

S

con

u

 

TI 401 R V SG 59 59 51a 39f 10u 10/06/2004 2 0.6 7.7 TI 461 R V SG 39 39 76a 21f 3u 10/07/2004 2 7.2 7.6 OG 310 P V SG 32 26 71a 17u 12f 10/12/2004 5 22.0 8.5 TI 351 R U SG 37 37 75f 25a 10/14/2004 5 3.6 7.7 OE 2001 R V B 175 65 63a 21u 15f 10/14/2004 2 2.7 8.2 OG 504 R U B 109 57 64f 35a 10/13/2004 10 .3 8.6 OG 846 R U B 230 34 51a 49f 11/08/2004 <1 3.5 8.8 CN 1126 R U B 299 162 98f 2a 11/08/2004 <1 3.8 9.1 CN 1341 R U SG 131 131 48f 48a 4u 11/09/2004 <1 3.9 8.9 OG 788 R U B 119 59.5 58f 41a 12/01/2004 -- .6 8.9 OG 311 P V SG 77 62 49a 34f 13u 11/30/2004 <1 2.3 7.9 D 501 P V SG 95 75 48u 31f 18a 11/30/2004 <1 5.9 7.9 BM 1080 R V B 249 101 49a 32f 14u 12/01/2004 -- .6 8.9 OG 6 P V SG 108 90 17f 29u 21a 12/14/2004 <1 2.3 8.0 CN 898 P V SG 133 123 44a 31f 19u 12/15/2004 <1 1.6 8.0 M 288 P V SG 58 52 45a 42f 12u 02/17/2005 8 5.8 8.0 CN 869 P V SG 233 204 48u 27f 24a 02/16/2005 5 6.3 8.4 CN 44 P V SG 172 162 28a 25f 20u 02/16/2005 8 4.0 8.5 BM 208 P V SG 101 66 51u 28f 4a 02/15/2005 5 4.9 7.9 BM 90 P V SG 145 UNK 59u 14f 12a 02/23/2005 25 7.2 7.6 BM 220 P V SG 51 36 63u 21f 4a 02/23/2005 8 7.4 7.4 C 317 P V SG 68 UNK 63u 25f 12a 03/09/2005 2 8.2 7.6 BM 375 P V SG 25 20 39u 36f 23a 03/09/2005 2 6.9 7.1 M 595 R U B 358 63 79f 20a 03/08/2005 2 6.5 8.6 M 289 P V SG 130 100 53a 39f 7u 03/08/2005 2 3.3 7.6 OD 8 P V SG 79 66 74a 19u 7f 03/02/2005 2 6.8 7.9 C 355 P V SG 63 49 43u 33f 25a 03/02/2005 5 9.2 8.1 TI 425 R U B 55 55 64f 36a 03/15/2005 2 3.9 7.6 BM 330 P V SG 41 32 58f 21a 9u 03/17/2005 2 7.2 7.4 C 452 P V SG 28 21 41f 37u 22a 03/16/2005 2 7.8 7.3 OD 1163 R V SG 29 29 35f 18a 8u 03/22/2005 30 2.1 8.4 C 226 P V SG 38 32 89a 7u 3f 03/30/2005 2 8.8 8.5 C 239 P V SG 59 42 81a 11u 8f 03/30/2005 2 5.4 7.6 

1 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego Co

local well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.
Table 2. Constituents for which ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, were analyzed but 

not detected.

[01012, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code]

Elements 

Beryllium 01012

Silver 01077

Thallium 01059

Organic Compounds

Acetochlor 49260

Acifluorfen 49315

Aldicarb 49312

Aldicarb sulfone 49313

Aldicarb sulfoxide 49314

Azinphos-methyl 82686

Bendiocarb 50299

Benfluralin 82673

Benomyl 50300

Bensulfuron 61693

Bentazon 38711

Benzene 34030

Bromacil 04029

Bromoxynil 49311

Butylate 04028

tert-Butyl ethyl ether 50004

Carbaryl 49310

Carbofuran 82674

Chlorobenzene 34301

Chlorpyrifos 38933

Cyanazine 04041

2,4-D 39732

2,4-DB 38746

2,4-D methyl ester 50470

Dacthal monoacid 49304

DCPA 82682

p,p’-DDE 34653

Desulfinyl fipronil 62170

Desulfinyl fipronil amide 62169

Diazinon 39572

Dibromochloromethane 32105

Dicamba 38442

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 34566

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 34536

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 34571

Dichlorodifluoromethane 34668

1,2-Dichloroethane 32103

1,1-Dichloroethene 34501

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 34546

Dichloromethane 34423

Dichloroprop 49302

1,2-Dichloropropane 34541

Dieldrin 39381

2,6-Diethylaniline 82660

Diethyl ether 81576

Diisopropyl ether 81577

Dimethenamid ESA 61951

Dimethenamid OXA 62482

Dinoseb 49301

Diphenamid 04033

Disulfoton 82677

Diuron 49300

EPTC 82668

Ethalfluralin 82663

Ethoprop 82672

Ethylbenzene 34371

Fenuron 49267

Fipronil 62166

Fipronil sulfide 62167

Fipronil sulfone 62168

Flufenacet ESA 61952

Flufenacet OXA 62483

Flumetsulam 61694

Fluometuron 38811

Fonofos 04095

alpha-HCH 34253

3-Hydroxycarbofuran 49308

Imazaquin 50356

Imazethapyr 50407

Imidacloprid 61695

3-Ketocarbofuran 50295

Lindane 39341

Linuron 38478

Mathathion 39532

MCPA 38482

MCPB 38487

Methyl parathion 82667

Metribuzin 82630

Molinate 82671

Metalaxal 50359

Methiocarb 38501

Methomyl 49296

Methyl tert-butyl ether 78032

Methyl tert-pentyl ether 50005

Metsulfuron 61697

N-4-Chlorophenyl-N’-methylurea 61692

Napropamide 82684

Neburon 49294

Nicosulfuron 50364

Norflurazon 49293

Oryzalin 49292

Oxamyl 38866

Parathion 39542

Pebulate 82669

Pendimethalin 82683

cis-Permethrin 82687

Phorate 82664

Picloram 49291

Prometon 04037

Propachlor 04024

Propachlor ESA 62766

Propachlor OXA 62767

Propanil 82679

Propargite 82685

Propham 49236

Propiconazole 50471

Propoxur 38538

Propyzamide 82676

Siduron 38548

Simazine 04035

Sulfometuron 50337

Styrene 77128

Tebuthiuron 82670

Terbacil 82665

Terbufos 82675

Tetrachloromethane 32101

Thiobencarb 82681

Triallate 82678

Tribromomethane 32104

Trichlopyr 49235

Trichlorofluoromethane 34488

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

Trifluralin 82661

Xylenes 81551

Tables 1–8  13
Table 3. Concentrations of nutrients, total organic carbon, and total phenols in ground-water samples from upper Susquehanna River Basin, New Yor

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; 00623, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code. Well locations are shown in figure 1] 

Well number1

Ammonia plus 

organic nitrogen,

 filtered

(mg/L as N)

(00623)

Ammonia,

 filtered, 

(mg/L as N)

(00608)

Nitrite plus

nitrate, filtered, 

(mg/L as N)

(00631)

Nitrite,

 filtered, 

(mg/L as N)

(00613)

Nitrate,

 filtered, 

(mg/L)

(00618)

Orthophosphate, 

filtered, 

(mg/L as P)

(00671)

Total orga

carbon

unfiltere

(mg/L

(00680

TI 401 <0.10 2E0.02 <0.06 <0.008 <0.06 0.12 <1.00 TI 461 E.05 <0.04 9.84 <.008 9.84 <0.02 1.37 OG 310 0.25 <.04 2.17 <.008 2.17 <.02 1.15 TI 351 <.10 <.04 1.25 <.008 1.25 <.02 <1.00 OE 2001 1.3 1.30 <.06 <.008 <.06 <.02 <1.00 OG 504 <.10 0.06 <.06 <.008 <.06 <.02 <1.00 OG 846 0.22 0.16 E.05 E.005 E.045 0.02 <1.00 CN 1126 <.10 <.04 <.06 <.008 <.06 <.02 <1.00 CN 1341 0.14 0.10 <.06 <.008 <.06 <.02 <1.00 OG 788 0.10 0.07 <.06 <.008 <.06 0.02 <1.00 OG 311 <.10 <.04 0.51 <.008 0.51 <.02 <1.00 D 501 E.05 <.04 1.04 <.008 1.04 <0.02 1.13 BM 1080 0.37 0.36 <.06 <.008 <.06 0.09 <1.00 OG 6 <.10 E.02 3.89 <.008 3.89 <.02 <1.00 CN 898 E.09 E.04 <.06 <.008 <.06 E.01 <1.00 M 288 E.08 <.04 3.91 <.008 3.91 <.02 1.09 CN 869 E.07 E.04 <.06 <.008 <.06 <.02 <1.00 CN 44 <.10 0.05 2.23 <.008 2.23 <.02 <1.00 BM 208 E.07 <.04 1.17 <.008 1.17 <.02 1.23 BM 90 0.26 0.25 <.06 <.008 <.06 --3 1.46 BM 220 E.08 <.04 4.39 <.008 4.39 <.02 1.41 C 317 E.06 <.04 3.30 <.008 3.30 <.02 1.25 BM 375 E.05 <.04 3.36 <.008 3.36 <.02 1.50 M 595 0.36 0.34 <.06 <.008 <.06 0.02 <1.00 M 289 E.09 E.02 <.06 <.008 <.06 <.02 <1.00 OD 8 E.08 <.04 2.82 <.008 2.82 <.02 1.09 C 355 0.12 <.04 1.75 <.008 1.75 <.02 <1.00 TI 425 <.10 <.04 0.38 E.006 0.37 <.02 <1.00 BM 330 <.10 <.04 0.73 <.008 0.73 <.02 <1.00 C 452 E.06 <.04 1.53 <.008 1.53 <.02 1.02 OD 1163 0.11 0.06 <.06 E.004 <.06 <.02 <1.00 C 226 <.10 <.04 10.5 <.008 10.5 <.02 1.22 C 239 E.06 <.04 3.83 <.008 3.83 <.02 <1.00 

1TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego County

identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2 E, estimated value; constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.3 --, no data
Table 4. Concentrations of inorganic constitutents in ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05.

[Concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/L) for filtered samples, unless noted; 90410, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; °C, degrees Celsius; 

Well 

number1

Acidneutralizing 

capacity 2

unfiltered

(90410)

Alkalinity 3

filtered

(29801)

Bicarbonate 3

filtered

(29805)

Calcium 

filtered

(00915) 

Magnesium 

filtered

(00925) 

Potassium 

filtered

(00935) 

Sodium 

filtered

(00930) 

Chloride 

filtered

(00940) 

Fluoride 

filtered

(00950) 

Silica 

filtered

(00955) 

TI 401 151 151 184 39.3 8.0 0.46 26.5 28.1 0.2 7.63 TI 461 168 278 339 94.6 21.8 3.45 17.8 27.4 E0.1 9.56 OG 310 114 282 344 122 6.17 1.73 15.5 29.5 E.1 6.64 TI 351 128 127 155 47.5 7.01 0.48 8.22 4.89 0.2 10.2 OE 2001 117 190 232 254 162 6.60 85.4 24.0 0.9 12.2 OG 504 127 154 188 41.0 6.98 0.49 15.1 2.92 0.1 13.6 OG 846 147 146 174 13.0 2.38 0.50 76.8 50.6 0.4 8.07 CN 1126 124 148 175 38.6 9.07 0.87 12.0 0.55 E0.1 12.9 CN 1341 139 175 207 43.6 10.2 0.60 28.0 24.8 E0.1 13.3 OG 788 165 165 196 17.8 4.87 0.43 48.8 3.64 0.2 9.93 OG 311 94 94 115 35.5 3.89 0.73 7.68 10.7 E0.1 9.80 D 501 122 129 157 59.7 4.25 1.02 12.7 30.5 E0.1 8.46 BM 1080 141 138 162 30.2 5.77 1.86 275 408 0.3 7.66 OG 6 159 203 248 87.3 7.48 2.00 21.5 39.5 E0.1 9.28 CN 898 114 113 138 38.4 4.27 0.70 8.47 6.55 0.2 12.4 M 288 199 237 289 101 10.7 1.41 30.9 60.8 E0.1 8.28 CN 869 147 147 179 57.3 11.6 1.04 21.7 43.6 0.1 10.7 CN 44 177 177 216 71.4 14.5 0.83 9.77 31.9 E0.1 9.74 BM 208 228 231 282 107 18.4 2.03 83.7 173 E0.1 8.87 BM 90 258 258 315 126 19.9 2.00 53.7 140 E0.1 11.2 BM 220 283 283 345 114 20.1 5.00 136 222 0.1 9.17 C 317 198 198 242 77.1 14.0 0.98 23.0 44.6 <0.1 7.49 BM 375 254 254 310 104 14.7 1.29 85.6 144 E0.1 7.34 M 595 188 197 240 32.1 4.83 0.65 23.4 297 0.8 8.40 M 289 168 168 205 59.5 12.0 0.54 2.49 2.05 E0.1 10.6 OD 8 254 254 310 100 18.9 2.71 49.3 102 E0.1 6.80 C 355 184 184 224 62.5 10.7 1.27 35.2 45.9 <.1 6.58 TI 425 105 105 128 33.6 5.94 0.56 10.9 5.09 0.1 9.13 BM 330 182 182 222 75.4 15.3 0.90 22.6 50.1 E0.1 9.56 C 452 139 139 170 60.4 9.10 1.97 50.7 92.1 E0.1 5.33 OD 1163 170 170 207 51.2 15.1 0.63 5.12 7.91 E0.1 6.28 C 226 239 256 312 92.1 24.4 1.01 7.85 11.1 <0.1 7.57 C 239 166 166 203 56.9 14.3 1.00 10.9 15.6 E0.1 6.37 

1TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego County

number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2 fixed-endpoint (pH 4.5) titration on unfiltered samples; (mg/L as CaCO3).3 fixed-endpoint (pH 4.5) titration on filtered samples; (mg/L as CaCO3).4 fixed-endpoint (pH 4.5) titration on filtered samples; (mg/L as HCO3-1)

E,estimated value; constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.
Table 5. Concentrations of metals and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05.

[All values are in micrograms per liter except as noted; 01105, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; >, less than. Well locations are shown in figu

Well number1

Aluminum, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01105) 

Arsenic, 

unfiltered 

recoverable

(01002) 

Barium, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01007) 

Boron, 

filtered 

(01020) 

Cadmium, 

unfiltered 

(01027) 

Chromium, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01034) 

Cobalt, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable 

(01037) 

Copper, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01042) 

Iron,

 filtered 

(01046) 

Iron, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01045) 

TI 401 3 27 277 21 <.04 E.4 0.151 0.7 898 840 TI 461 <2 <2 166 18 <.04 <.8 0.425 3.3 <6 <6 OG 310 2E1 <2 137 28 <.04 <.8 0.385 11.2 <6 <6 TI 351 E1 <2 6 20 <.04 <.8 0.177 13.3 12 210 OE 2001 E2 <2 42 1,730 <.04 <.8 1.22 10.3 10 30 OG 504 E2 <2 55 118 <.04 <.8 0.145 E.3 303 350 OG 846 11 <2 48 489 <.04 <.8 0.066 1.8 6 50 CN 1126 E1 E1 206 39 <.04 E.4 0.381 1.5 16 190 CN 1341 E2 E1 222 101 <.04 <.8 0.218 E.5 407 410 OG 788 3 <2 125 244 <.04 <.8 0.080 3.0 45 170 OG 311 E1 <2 10 15 <.04 <.8 0.124 6.0 <6 <6 D 501 E2 <2 121 15 <.04 <.8 0.197 1.6 <6 <6 BM 1080 35 19 2,220 180 0.42 E.6 0.164 3.6 <6 440 OG 6 2 <2 109 43 <.04 1.5 0.481 1.6 <6 M3 CN 898 E1 E1 105 25 <.04 2.2 0.193 1.8 E3 10 M 288 <2 <2 107 43 <.04 <.8 0.387 1.4 <6 <6 CN 869 E1 <2 101 21 <.04 <.8 0.237 1.0 12 10 CN 44 4 <2 130 15 <.04 E.5 0.292 3.6 <6 10 BM 208 <2 <2 79 38 <.04 E.7 0.398 2.4 <6 M BM 90 E1 7 508 47 <.04 <.8 0.507 7.5 1,230 1,150 BM 220 E1 <2 99 70 <.04 E.5 0.560 3.0 <6 M C 317 <2 <2 36 16 <.04 E.5 0.288 8.8 E4 <6 BM 375 <2 <2 61 31 <.04 <.8 0.354 2.0 <6 <6 M 595 13 <2 1,420 624 <.04 E.5 0.110 2.6 <6 240 M 289 <2 E2 118 14 <.04 <.8 0.214 1.9 55 70 OD 8 E1 <2 115 28 <.04 E.4 0.444 2.8 <6 <6 C 355 E1 <2 29 13 <.04 E.6 0.272 34.3 <6 <6 TI 425 E2 <2 59 32 E.04 <.8 0.146 1.5 <6 M BM 330 <2 <2 60 10 <.04 E.4 0.305 1.9 16 40 C 452 <2 <2 64 16 <.04 E.4 0.277 2.3 <6 <6 OD 1163 E1 <2 163 8.5 <.04 <.8 0.292 1.4 1,130 5,270 C 226 6 <2 171 17 <.04 E.6 0.434 2.8 <6 20 C 239 E2 <2 67 12 <.04 E.5 0.263 4.7 E3 10 

1 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego County

local well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2 E, estimated value; constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.3 M, constituent was detected in the sample but was not quantified.
Table 5. Concentrations of metals and radionuclides in ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05.—Conti

Well number 1

Manganese, 

filtered

(01056)

Manganese, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01055)

Mercury, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(71900)

Molybdenum, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01062)

Nickel, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01067)

Selenium, 

unfiltered

(01147)

Strontium, 

unfiltered, 

recoverable

(01082)

Radon-222, 

unfiltered, 

(picocuries 

per liter)

(82303)

 Antimony 

unfiltered

 (01097)

Uranium 

(natural), 

unfiltered

(28011)

TI 401 410 408 <.01 1.6 0.46 <.4 227 1,000 <.2 E0.007 TI 461 <.6 <.6 <.01 E.2 1.83 <.4 120 750 <.2 0.344 OG 310 <.6 <.6 <.01 0.3 1.85 0.5 276 660 <.2 0.393 TI 351 0.8 1.1 <.01 <.2 1.76 0.5 44.5 1,290 <.2 0.157 OE 2001 16.5 14.8 <.01 0.3 4.67 5.1 11,600 60 <.2 0.386 OG 504 138 134 <.01 0.5 0.61 E.4 281 280 <.2 0.088 OG 846 41.1 37.6 <.01 0.2 0.55 0.8 322 110 <.2 0.018 CN 1126 134 110 <.01 0.5 0.93 <.4 250 1,490 <.2 0.256 CN 1341 148 129 <.01 E.2 0.78 0.7 945 210 <.2 0.149 OG 788 51.5 46.0 E.01 0.3 0.44 <.4 281 640 <.2 0.015 OG 311 59.4 52.0 E.01 0.6 0.36 <.4 134 630 <.2 0.375 D 501 360 343 <.01 E.1 0.46 0.5 93.1 1,050 E.1 0.388 BM 1080 190 159 E.01 2.5 2.23 7.4 2,140 430 <.2 0.042 OG 6 <.6 <.6 E.01 <.2 1.26 0.5 117 1,180 <.2 0.182 CN 898 444 420 <.01 0.5 0.70 E.3 161 430 <.2 0.783 M 288 2.1 2.0 <.01 <.2 2.93 <.4 199 700 <.2 0.544 CN 869 264 260 <.01 0.4 0.82 0.5 381 180 <.2 0.600 CN 44 15.3 32.3 E.01 0.3 1.00 0.5 104 660 0.2 0.832 BM 208 E.4 <.6 <.01 0.5 1.45 0.9 177 730 <.2 0.305 BM 90 969 975 <.01 0.4 2.45 0.6 340 290 <.2 0.869 BM 220 <.6 <.6 <.01 E.1 2.82 1.2 215 560 <.2 0.301 C 317 <.6 <.6 E.01 E.1 0.84 E.4 103 650 <.2 0.212 BM 375 0.6 2E.5 <.01 <.2 1.05 0.6 127 840 <.2 0.505 M 595 62.1 59.5 <.01 0.5 0.53 3.0 2,400 90 <.2 0.033 M 289 157 143 <.01 0.5 0.56 E.3 130 120 <.2 0.709 OD 8 1.1 0.9 <.01 E.2 3.50 0.9 478 480 <.2 0.246 C 355 <.6 <.6 <.01 <.2 1.98 0.5 81.4 640 <.2 0.097 TI 425 156 170 0.02 0.2 0.38 <.4 87.7 1,040 <.2 0.307 BM 330 E.4 E.4 <.01 E.1 0.76 0.5 98.5 700 <.2 0.291 C 452 14.4 18.8 E.01 E.1 1.11 0.6 104 850 <.2 0.183 OD 1163 49.0 63.4 <.01 0.5 0.80 0.5 65.9 60 <.2 0.314 C 226 <.6 E.3 <.01 <.2 0.84 <.4 95.4 380 <.2 0.221 C 239 <.6 <.6 0.02 <.2 0.70 <.4 65.7 410 <.2 0.105 

1 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego Coun

number is local well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2 E, estimated value; constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.3 M, constituent was detected in the sample but was not quantified.
Table 6. Concentrations of pesticides detected in ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 200

[04040, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code. All concentrations are in micrograms per liter for filtered samples. Dashes (--Well locations are shown in figure 1]

Well number1

2-Chloro4-isopropylamino-

6-aminos-triazine 

(04040)

2-Chloro-

6-ethylamino4-amino-striazine

(04038) 

2-Hydroxy4-isopropylamino-

6-ethylaminos-triazine

(50355) 

Alachlor

(46342)

Atrazine

(39632) 

Caffeine 

(50305)

Chlorodiaminos-triazine 

(04039)

TI 401 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0050 <.04 TI 461 2E.007 <.08 <.032 <.004 E.006 <.0180 E.01 OG 310 E.005 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0100 <.04 TI 351 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 <.0180 <.04 OE 2001 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0061 <.04 OG 504 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0090 <.04 OG 846 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 <.0180 <.04 CN 1126 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 <.0180 <.04 CN 1341 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0084 <.04 OG 788 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0099 <.04 OG 311 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0063 <.04 D 501 E.004 <.08 <.032 <.004 E.005 0.0282 <.04 BM 1080 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 <.0180 <.04 OG 6 E.003 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.006 <.04 CN 898 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.005 <.04 M 288 E.051 E.01 E.006 0.120 0.095 E.0106 <.04 CN 869 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 <.0180 <.04 CN 44 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0131 <.04 BM 208 E.003 <.08 <.032 <.004 E.003 E.0101 <.04 BM 90 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0118 <.04 BM 220 E.003 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 E.0168 <.04 C 317 E.012 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 <.020 <.04 BM 375 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.004 <.04 M 595 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.0069 <.04 M 289 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.0088 <.04 OD 8 E.004 <.08 <.032 <.004 <.007 <.0180 <.04 C 355 E.013 <.08 <.032 <.004 E.006 <.0180 <.04 TI 425 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.013 <.04 BM 330 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.006 <.04 C 452 E.005 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.017 <.04 OD 1163 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 <.0180 <.04 C 226 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 E.015 <.04 C 239 <.006 <.08 <.032 <.005 <.007 <.0180 <.04 

1 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison Coun

County; number is local well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2 E, estimated value; constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.3 M, constituent was detected in the sample but was not quantified.
Table 6. Concentrations of pesticides detected in ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 200

Well number 1 Dinoseb (49301) Acetochlor ESA (61029) Alachlor ESA (50009) Alachlor OA (61031) Metolcahlor ESA (61043) Metolachlor OA (61044) Acetochlor/ Metolachlor ESA - 2nd Amide (62850) 

TI 401 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 TI 461 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 0.78 0.06 0.06 OG 310 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 0.06 <.02 <.02 TI 351 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OE 2001 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OG 504 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OG 846 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 CN 1126 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 CN 1341 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OG 788 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OG 311 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 D 501 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 0.09 <.02 <.02 BM 1080 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OG 6 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 0.06 <.02 <.02 CN 898 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 M 288 M3 <.02 0.02 0.16 0.10 0.12 <.02 CN 869 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 CN 44 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 0.10 <.02 <.02 BM 208 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 BM 90 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 BM 220 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 0.15 0.02 <.02 C 317 <.04 <.02 0.04 <.02 2.91 0.03 <.02 BM 375 <.04 0.08 0.09 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 M 595 <.04 <.02 0.06 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 M 289 <.04 <.02 0.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 OD 8 <.04 <.02 0.07 <.02 0.39 0.29 <.02 C 355 <.04 <.02 0.09 <.02 0.38 <.02 <.02 TI 425 <.04 <.02 0.04 <.02 0.07 <.02 <.02 BM 330 <.04 <.02 0.16 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 C 452 <.04 <.02 0.04 <.02 0.57 0.04 <.02 OD 1163 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02 C 226 <.04 <.02 0.02 <.02 2.46 0.04 0.05 C 239 <.04 <.02 <.02 <.02 1.13 <.02 <.02 

1 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; 

M, Madison County; OE, Otsego County; number is local well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2 E, estimated value; constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.3 M, constituent was detected in the sample but was not quantified.
Table 7. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples from the upper Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05.

[34506, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code. All values are in micrograms per liter for unfiltered samples. Well locations are shown in figure 1]

Well number1

1,1,1-

Trichloroethane 

(34506) 

1,1-Dichloroethane

(34496) 

Bromodichloromethane

(32101) 

cis-1,2-

Dichloroethene

(77093) 

Dibromochloromethane

(32015) 

Methyl tertbutyl ether

(78032) 

Tetrachloroethene

(34475) 

Vinyl 

chloride

(39175) 

Trichloroethene

(39180) 

Trichloromethane

(32106) 

TI 401 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 TI 461 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OG 310 <.1 <.1 0.2 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.2 TI 351 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OE 2001 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OG 504 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OG 846 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 CN 1126 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 0.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 CN 1341 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OG 788 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OG 311 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 D 501 <.1 <.1 <.1 1.9 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 2.0 <.1 BM 1080 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OG 6 0.7 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 CN 898 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 M 288 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 CN 869 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 CN 44 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 BM 208 0.9 0.2 <.1 0.4 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 0.8 <.1 BM 90 0.1 1.2 <.1 2.5 <.2 <.2 <.1 0.4 <.1 <.1 BM 220 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 0.6 0.9 C 317 0.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 0.1 <.1 BM 375 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 M 595 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 M 289 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OD 8 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 C 355 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 TI 425 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 BM 330 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 C 452 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 OD 1163 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 C 226 <.1 <.1 0.3 <.1 0.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.2 C 239 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 

1 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego Count

well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.
Table 8. Concentrations of bacteria in unfiltered ground-water samples from the upper 

Susquehanna River Basin, New York, 2004–05. 

[mL, milliliter; >, less than. Well locations are shown in figure 1] 

Well number1 Esherichia coli 

(colonies per 100 mL)

Fecal coliform

(colonies per 100 mL)

Standard plate count 

(colonies per mL)

Total coliform 

(colonies per 100 mL)

TI 401 <1 5 83 157

TI 461 <1 <5 <1 <1

OG 310 <1 <5 2 <1

TI 351 <1 <5 <1 <1

OE 2001 <1 <5 1 1

OG 504 <1 <5 <1 <1

OG 846 <1 <5 248 39

CN 1126 <1 <5 <1 <1

CN 1341 <1 <5 1 1

OG 788 <1 <5 1 <1

OG 311 <1 <5 <1 <1

D 501 <1 <5 <1 <1

BM 1080 <1 <5 <1 <1

OG 6 <1 <5 <1 <1

CN 898 <1 <5 <1 <1

M 288 <1 <5 1 <1

CN 869 <1 <5 <1 <1

CN 44 <1 <5 1 <1

BM 208 <1 <5 <1 <1

BM 90 <1 <5 <1 <1

BM 220 <1 <5 <1 <1

C 317 <1 <5 2 1

BM 375 <1 <5 2 18

M 595 <1 <5 <1 <1

M 289 <1 <5 <1 <1

OD 8 <1 <5 <1 <1

C 355 <1 <5 <1 <1

TI 425 <1 <5 1 <1

BM 330 <1 <5 <1 <1

C 452 <1 <5 <1 <1

OD 1163 <1 <5 <1 <1

C 226 <1 <5 <1 <1

C 239 <1 <5 <1 <1

1

 TI, Tioga County; CN, Chenango County; C, Cortland County; OG, Onondaga County; BM, Broome 

County; D, Delaware County; M, Madison County; OE, Otsego County; number is local well-identification 

number assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Tables 1–8  21