U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2011–1074

Prepared in cooperation with the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008
Cover. Photographs from the shores of Lake Ontario near Oswego. (photos by H.J. Zajd, Jr., 2010)
Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake 

Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

By Amy J. Risen and James E. Reddy

Prepared in cooperation with the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Open-File Report 2011–1074

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

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:

Risen, A.J., and Reddy, J.E., 2011, Groundwater quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1074, 32 p., at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1074.
iii

Contents

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

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

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

Study Area..............................................................................................................................................2

Physiography, Land Use, and Precipitation ............................................................................2

Glacial Deposits ...........................................................................................................................2

Bedrock .........................................................................................................................................2

Population and Water Supply ....................................................................................................4

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................4

Site Selection ........................................................................................................................................4

Sampling Methods................................................................................................................................8

Analytical Methods ..............................................................................................................................8

Groundwater Quality ....................................................................................................................................9

Physical Properties ..............................................................................................................................9

Major Ions ...........................................................................................................................................10

Nutrients and Organic Carbon .........................................................................................................11

Trace Elements and Radon-222 .......................................................................................................11

Pesticides ............................................................................................................................................13

Volatile Organic Compounds and Phenolic Compounds .............................................................13

Bacteria ...............................................................................................................................................13

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................13

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................14

Appendixes 1–9............................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Map showing pertinent geographic features of study area in the Eastern Lake

Ontario Basin of New York, and locations of the 18 wells sampled in 2008........................3

2. Map showing land use in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York study area

and locations of the 18 wells sampled in 2008.........................................................................5

3. Map showing surficial geology of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York

study area and locations of the eight wells screened in sand and gravel aquifers 

that were sampled in 2008...........................................................................................................6

4. Map showing generalized bedrock geology of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of

New York study area and locations of the 10 wells completed in bedrock that were

sampled in 2008.............................................................................................................................7
iv

Tables

1. Area and population of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York study area.............4

2. Summary statistics for concentrations of major ions in sand and gravel aquifers

and bedrock aquifers in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008....................10

3. Summary statistics for concentrations of major ions in sand and gravel aquifers

and bedrock aquifers in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008....................11

4. Summary statistics for concentrations of trace elements and radon-222 in sand

and gravel aquifers and bedrock aquifers in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of 

New York, 2008 ............................................................................................................................12

Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3

)

Flow rate

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

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day (m3

/d)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3

/s)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

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

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

°C= (°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NAVD 29).

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

Laboratory reporting level (LRL). Generally equal to twice the yearly determined long-term 

method detection level (LTMDL). The LRL controls false negative error. The probability of falsely 

reporting a nondetection for a sample that contained an analyte at a concentration equal to or 

greater than the LRL is predicted to be less than or equal to 1 percent. The value of the LRL will 

be reported with a “less than” remark code for samples in which the analyte was not detected. 

The National Water Quality Laboratory collects quality-control data from selected analytical 

methods on a continuing basis to determine LTMDLs and to establish LRLs. These values are 

reevaluated annually based on the most current quality-control data, and, therefore, may 

change (Childress and others, 1999).

List of Acronyms

AMCL Alternative maximum contaminant level

CFU/mL Colony forming units per milliliter

CIAT 2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine (also called deethylatrazine)

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

ESA Ethanesulfonic acid

GC-MS Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

GWSI Ground-water site inventory

HA Health Advisory for drinking water

HPC Heterotrophic plate count

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

LRL Laboratory Reporting Level

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MTBE Methyl-tert-butyl ether

μg/L micrograms per liter 

μm micrometer

μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

NWQL USGS National Water Quality Laboratory

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOH New York State Department of Health

OA Oxanilic acid

OGRL USGS Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory

OIET 2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-ethylamino-s-triazine (also called hydroxyatrazine)

pCi/L picocuries per liter 

Pt-Co units Platinum-cobalt units 

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC Volatile organic compound
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008

By Amy J. Risen and James E. Reddy

standard of 300 pCi/L. Five pesticides and pesticide 

degradates were detected among 6 samples at concentrations 

of 0.03 μg/L or less; most were herbicides or their degradates. 

Six VOCs were detected among 9 samples at concentrations 

of 1.2 μg/L or less; these included 3 trihalomethanes, benzene, 

toluene, and xylenes. Total coliform bacteria were detected 

in 3 samples, and the heterotrophic plate count exceeded the 

USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 500 colony 

forming units in one sample. Fecal coliform bacteria, 

including Escherichia coli, were not detected in any sample. 

Introduction 

Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act 

Amendments of 1977 requires that states monitor and report 

biennially on the chemical quality of surface water and 

groundwater in the state boundaries (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1997). The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) in 2002, in cooperation with the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 

developed a program to evaluate groundwater quality 

throughout the major river basins in New York on a rotating 

basis. The work parallels the NYSDEC Rotating Intensive 

Basin Study program, which evaluates surface-water quality 

in 2 or 3 of the 14 major river basins in the State each year. 

The groundwater-quality program began in 2002 with a pilot 

study in the Mohawk River Basin (Butch and others, 2003). 

Groundwater-quality sampling was completed in the Chemung 

River Basin in 2003 (Hetcher-Aguila, 2005); the Lake 

Champlain (Nystrom, 2006) and Susquehanna River Basins in 

2004 (Hetcher-Aguila and Eckhardt, 2006); the St. Lawrence 

(Nystrom, 2007a), Delaware (Nystrom, 2007b), and Genesee 

River Basins (Eckhardt and others, 2007) in 2005; the 

Mohawk River Basin (Nystrom, 2008) and western New York 

(Niagara and Allegheny River Basins, and tributaries to Lake 

Erie and western Lake Ontario) (Eckhardt and others, 2008) 

in 2006; and the Upper Hudson River Basin (Nystrom, 2009) 

and Central New York (Oswego, Seneca, and Oneida River 

Basins) (Eckhardt and others, 2009) in 2007. Sampling in 

the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, the Chemung River Basin, 

and the Lower Hudson River Basin (Nystrom, 2010) were 

completed in 2008. 

Abstract

Water samples were collected from nine production 

wells and nine private residential wells in the Eastern Lake 

Ontario Basin of New York from August through October 

2008 and analyzed to characterize the chemical quality of 

groundwater. The wells were selected to provide adequate 

spatial coverage of the 3,225-square-mile study area; areas 

of greatest groundwater use were emphasized. Eight of the 

18 wells sampled, were screened in sand and gravel aquifers, 

and 10 were finished in bedrock aquifers. The samples were 

collected and processed by standard U.S. Geological Survey 

procedures and were analyzed for 223 physical properties and 

constituents, including major ions, nutrients, trace elements, 

radon-222, pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

and indicator bacteria.

Water quality in the study area is generally good, but 

concentrations of some constituents exceeded current or 

proposed Federal or New York State drinking-water standards; 

these were: color (2 samples), pH (1 sample), sodium 

(5 samples), chloride (1 sample), aluminum (2 samples), iron 

(5 unfiltered samples), manganese (3 samples), radon-222 

(13 samples), and bacteria (4 samples). Dissolved-oxygen 

concentrations in samples from wells finished in sand and 

gravel [median 3.8 milligrams per liter (mg/L)] were greater 

than those from wells finished in bedrock (median less than 

0.7 mg/L). The pH of all samples was typically neutral or 

slightly basic (median 7.4); the median water temperature 

was 11.3 degrees Celsius (°C). The ions with the highest 

concentrations were bicarbonate (median 174 mg/L) and 

calcium (median 24.1 mg/L). Groundwater in the basin 

ranges from soft to moderately hard [less than or equal to 

120 mg/L as 9CaCO30] and median hardness was 90 mg/L 

as CaCO3. Concentrations of nitrate plus nitrite in samples 

from sand and gravel wells (median concentration 0.42 mg/L 

as nitrogen) were generally higher than those in samples 

from bedrock wells (median <0.04 mg/L as nitrogen). 

The trace elements with the highest concentrations were 

strontium [median 138 micrograms per liter (μg/L)], barium 

(median 38.2 μg/L) and iron (median 44 μg/L). Radon-222 

activities were generally high [median 500 picocuries per liter 

(pCi/L)]; 72 percent of all samples exceeded a proposed U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) drinking-water 
2 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

Groundwater characteristics are affected by the geology 

and the land use of the area. Shallow wells that tap sand and 

gravel aquifers are susceptible to contamination by several 

kinds of compounds, including volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), pesticides, deicing chemicals, and nutrients from 

upgradient highways, industrial, agricultural, and residential 

areas. The movement of these contaminants to the water 

table through the soils and surficial sand and gravel can be 

relatively rapid. Bedrock wells that tap sandstone and shale 

aquifers in rural upland areas are generally less susceptible 

to contamination from industrial and urban sources, which 

are mainly in the valleys; but bedrock wells in lowland areas 

underlain by carbonate rock (limestone and dolostone) may be 

more vulnerable to contamination from surface runoff because 

infiltration rates and groundwater flow can be relatively 

rapid through solution features in the rock. Agricultural land 

upgradient of wells may be a potential source of contamination 

from fertilizers, pesticides, and fecal waste from livestock; 

lawns and residential septic systems also are a potential 

source of these contaminants. In addition to anthropogenic 

contaminants, the aquifers contain naturally derived elements 

that may diminish water quality, such as sodium, chloride, 

sulfate, iron, manganese, and trace elements such as arsenic; 

some also may contain hydrogen sulfide, methane, and radon 

gases from deep-lying sources.

Purpose and Scope 

This report presents the findings of the 2008 study in the 

Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, in which 18 groundwater-quality 

samples were collected from August through October 2008. 

This report (1) describes the hydrogeologic setting and the 

methods of site selection, sample collection, and chemical 

analysis, and (2) discusses the analytical results for physical 

properties and concentrations of major ions, nutrients, trace 

elements and radionuclides, pesticides, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and indicator bacteria. Information about 

the sampled wells and results of the analyses are presented in 

the appendix (tables A1 through A9). 

Study Area

The 3,225-square mile (mi2) study area includes all or 

parts of 6 counties in north-central New York (fig. 1). The 

study area encompasses the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin 

(between the Oswego River Basin and the St. Lawrence River 

Basin), and includes the Mid-Northern Lake Ontario Basin, 

the Black River Basins and the Chaumont River-Perch River 

Basin (fig. 1, table 1).

Physiography, Land Use, and Precipitation 

The western part of the study area lies in the Lake 

Ontario Lowlands physiographic province (fig. 1, table A1). 

The central part lies in the Tug Hill Uplands, and the eastern 

part lies in the Adirondack Uplands. Forest and pasture 

dominate the lowland western parts of the study area (fig. 2); 

where most of the population is located. The Tug Hill region 

is mostly undeveloped forest and wetland. The Adirondack 

Uplands area is steep forest land and has numerous lakes. The 

Watertown and Oswego metropolitan areas are in the western 

part of the study area. 

Land-surface elevations range from about 250 feet (ft) 

at Lake Ontario to about 3,000 ft in the Adirondack Uplands. 

The climate is humid, and air temperature in the lowlands is 

moderated by Lake Ontario. The Tug Hill Uplands and the 

Adirondacks receive substantially more precipitation than the 

Lake Ontario lowlands, primarily because of lake-effect snow 

in the winter months. Virtually all groundwater in the area 

originates as precipitation, which ranges from about 36 inches 

per year (in/yr) in the western areas to about 48 in/yr in the 

central and eastern areas; the Tug Hill Upland may receive 

up to 60 in/yr. About 30 percent of the annual precipitation 

infiltrates the land surface and recharges the sand and gravel 

and bedrock aquifers (Randall, 2001). 

Glacial Deposits

Glacially derived deposits are generally observed 

throughout the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York 

(fig. 3). Glaciers scoured the hills and valleys of New York 

and left a thin mantle of till on top of the bedrock in upland 

areas and morainal deposits of fine-grained, poorly sorted 

material that formed valley plugs and low ridges (Cadwell and 

Muller, 1986). During the subsequent period of deglaciation, 

meltwater streams deposited layers of stratified drift (fluvial 

sands and gravels) in front, on top, beneath, and alongside 

glaciers, to form deposits that are seen today as outwash 

plains, eskers, kettles, kames, and kame terraces. In some 

areas near Lake Ontario, sequences of beach sands were 

deposited along the shores of glacial lakes. These water-borne 

deposits of sand and gravel, where saturated with groundwater, 

now form important aquifers in the Lake Ontario Lowlands 

and in an area in the western side of the Adirondacks near 

Forestport. Glacial meltwaters also deposited fine-grained 

sediments in proglacial lakes, where the meltwaters settled 

to form deposits of lacustrine clays, silts, and fine sands with 

limited permeability. Recent alluvium covers some of the 

glacial deposits and forms floodplains along the larger streams 

and rivers and on the terraces along the shore of Lake Ontario. 

The glacial deposits in the study area are described in detail 

by Fairchild (1928), Coates (1966), Waller and Ayer (1975), 

Miller (1982, 1988, 1990), Miller and others (1989), Zarriello 

(1993), Randall (2001), and Kontis and others (2004).

Bedrock

The bedrock aquifers in the western and central parts of 

the study area (fig. 4) consist of gently dipping, interbedded 

sedimentary units of shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, 
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Pertinent geographic features of study area in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, and locations 

of the 18 wells sampled in 2008. (Well data are given in table A1, at end of report.)

CANADA

Lake

Ontario

Perch

Lake

Stillwater Reservoir Big Moose

 Lake

Woodhull Lake

North

Lake

Salmon River Reservoir

Kayuta Lake

Fulton Chain Lakes

Chaumont River

Beaver River

Perch River

Black River

Otter Creek

Salmon River

Black River

Moose River

Woodhull Creek

South

Sandy Creek

Black Rive

San

r

dy Creek

St. Lawrence River

Lewis

St. Lawrence

Hamilton

Oneida

Herkimer

Jefferson

Oswego

Fulton

Franklin

Cayuga

Onondaga Madison

04150101

Black River Basin

04150102

Chaumont River -

Perch River

Basin

04140102

Mid-Northern

Lake Ontario Basin

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

J 179

L 177

J 181

OE 1991

J 1118 L 386

OW 918

OW 1052

HE 628

L 491

HE 1367

J 1059 HE 1341

J 1027

OW 1599

J 180

L 178

L 179

76°30' 74°30'

44°30'

43°30'

Watertown

Lowville

Forestport

Oswego

Old Forge

ADIRONDACK PARK

EXPLANATION

Number is well number assigned by

U.S. Geological Survey; one- or twoletter prefix denotes county.

J 1027 Residential well

L 386 Production well

Basin boundary and

hydrologic unit code

City

!

Study area

04140101

Adirondack Park

boundary

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Lewis

Jefferson

Oneida

Oswego

Hamilton

Herkimer

St. Lawrence

Fulton Onondaga

Franklin

Madison

Lake Ontario Lowlands

Tug Hill

Uplands

Adirondack

Uplands

CANADA

Lake

Ontario

Physiographic Map

NY

PA

VT

NJ

CT

MA

NH

Location Map

CANADA Study Area

Lake Ontario

Lake

Erie Buffalo

Albany

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, Seamless Data Distribution System,

accessed in 2009 at http://seamless.usgs.gov 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18

0 5 10 20 Miles

0 5 10 20 Kilometers
4 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

Table 1. Area and population of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York study area.

[Locations are shown in figure 1]

Drainage basin Hydrologic unit code Area (square miles) Population1

Black River 04150101 1,903 40,961

Chaumont River-Perch River 04150102 350 55,892

Mid-Northern Lake Ontario 04140102 972 52,824

1

2000 Census (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000).

and dolostone of Ordovician and Silurian age (Broughton and 

others, 1962; Isachsen and others, 2000). A band of carbonaterock aquifers— mostly limestone with some interbedded 

shale and dolostone—extend south eastward from Watertown 

around the Tug Hill area to Forestport. The bedrock east of 

Oswego, including the Tug Hill Uplands is mostly sandstone 

and siltstone. Bedrock in the Adirondack Uplands is a complex 

mixture of metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rock.

Population and Water Supply

Most of the study area is predominantly rural, but 

includes several small cities such as Watertown, Oswego, 

Lowville, and Old Forge (fig. 1). Total population of the 

study area in 2000 was about 150,000 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 2000). Production wells supply about 12 million 

gallons per day (Mgal/d) of water for commercial and 

domestic use in the study area (New York State Department of 

Health, 2007a).

Several small cities such as Watertown and Oswego tap 

reservoirs and lakes for their water supply, but many rural 

communities rely on community water-system (production) 

wells that tap groundwater from bedrock or from surficial 

deposits of sand and gravel. Most homeowners that live in 

rural areas have private wells that tap local surficial deposits 

or bedrock. Waller and Ayer (1975) estimated that about 

13 percent of water use in the Black River Basin was derived 

from groundwater sources.

The most productive aquifers in the study area are the 

glacial and alluvial deposits of sand and gravel (fig. 3). Miller 

and others (1989) estimated that the Tug Hill glacial-drift 

aquifer supplies more than 2 Mgal/d to 7 municipal water 

systems in Oswego and Jefferson Counties. Waller and Ayers 

(1975) estimated that wells in the sand and gravel deposits 

along some river valleys in the Adirondack region could 

potentially yield more than 100 gallons per minute (gal/min). 

Till deposits cover much of the upland areas, but are 

typically thin, relatively impermeable, and yield little water to 

wells. Lacustrine silt and clay beds are in most large valleys 

but yield little or no water to wells; however, the silt and clay 

beds may confine and protect productive sand and gravel 

aquifers that lie beneath. Bedrock aquifers (fig. 4) are used 

for water supply where sand and gravel aquifers are absent, 

typically in upland areas. The bedrock aquifers in the study 

area may yield water of poorer chemical quality than the 

surficial aquifers; for example, the carbonate rock aquifers 

typically yield very hard water, and shale bedrock aquifers 

near Lake Ontario may yield salty water (Kantrowitz, 1970; 

Crain, 1975).

Methods

The methods used in this study, including (1) wellselection criteria, (2) sampling methods, and (3) analytical 

methods, were designed to maximize data precision, 

accuracy, and comparability. Groundwater-sample collection 

and processing followed standard USGS procedures as 

documented in the National Field Manual for the Collection 

of Water-Quality Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously 

dated). Samples were analyzed by documented methods at the 

USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, 

Colo., the USGS Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory 

(OGRL) in Lawrence, Kans., and New York State Department 

of Health (NYSDOH)-certified laboratories. 

Site Selection 

A total of 18 wells were selected for sample collection. 

Wells were selected to provide adequate spatial coverage of 

the basin; areas of greatest groundwater use were emphasized. 

The study did not target specific municipalities, industries, or 

agricultural practices. The sites selected for sampling represent 

a combination of the four predominant land-use categoriesagriculture, urban, forest, and wetland. Eight wells were 

finished in sand and gravel aquifers (fig. 3) and ranged from 

17 to 88 ft deep (table A1); production wells that tap sand and 

gravel have slotted screens; whereas, most residential wells 

that tap sand and gravel simply have an open-ended steel 

casing. Ten wells were finished in bedrock aquifers (fig. 4) and 

ranged from 58 to 700 ft deep (table A1); these wells typically 

have steel casing set into open boreholes in competent rock, 

and water yields are obtained from flow through bedrock 

fractures to the well. The eight wells that tap sand and gravel 

consisted of 6 production wells and 2 private residential wells; 

the 10 bedrock wells consisted of 3 production wells and 

7 private residential wells. Sampling was done from August 

through October 2008. The water samples were analyzed for 

223 physical properties and constituents. Three samples—two 
Methods 5

CANADA

Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence River

Lewis

St. Lawrence

Hamilton

Oneida

Herkimer

Jefferson

Oswego

Fulton

Franklin

Cayuga

Onondaga Madison

J 179

L 177

J 181

OE 1991

J 1118 L 386

OW 918

OW 1052 HE 628

L 491

HE 1367

J 1059

HE 1341

J 1027

OW 1599

J 180

L 178

L 179

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

76°30' 74°30'

44°30'

43°30'

Watertown

Lowville

Forestport

Oswego

Old Forge

Agriculture

Forest

Urban

Wetland

Water

EXPLANATION

Residential well

Production well

Number is well number assigned by

U.S. Geological Survey; one- or twoletter prefix denotes county.

City

!J 1027

L 386

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, Seamless Data Distribution System,

accessed in 2009 at http://seamless.usgs.gov 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18

Land use from National Land Cover Data 2001,

Resolution 1 arc-second (approx. 30m)

0 10 20 5 Miles

0 10 20 5 Kilometers

Figure 2. Land use in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York study area and locations of the 18 wells sampled in 

2008. (Well data are given in table A1, at end of report.)
6 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

CANADA

Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence River

Lewis

St. Lawrence

Hamilton

Oneida

Herkimer

Jefferson

Oswego

Fulton

Franklin

Cayuga

Onondaga Madison

L 177

J 1118 L 386 HE 1367

OW 1599

J 180

L 178

L 179

!

76°30' 74°30'

44°30'

43°30'

Watertown

Lowville

Forestport

Oswego

Old Forge

EXPLANATION

Alluvial and glaciofluvial sand and gravel

Lacustrine sand, silt and clay

Bedrock

Till 

Number is well number assigned by

U.S. Geological Survey; one- or twoletter prefix denotes county.

Water

City

Residential well

Production well

!HE 1367

L 386

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, Seamless Data Distribution System,

accessed in 2009 at http://seamless.usgs.gov 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18

Surficial Geology from New York State Museum, 1:250,000

0 10 20 5 Miles

0 10 20 5 Kilometers

Figure 3. Surficial geology of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York study area and locations of the eight wells 

screened in sand and gravel aquifers that were sampled in 2008. (Well data are given in table A1, at end of report.) 
Methods 7

CANADA

Lake

Ontario

St. Lawrence River

Lewis

St. Lawrence

Hamilton

Oneida

Herkimer

Jefferson

Oswego

Fulton

Franklin

Cayuga

Onondaga Madison

J 179

J 181

OE 1991

OW 918

OW 1052 HE 628

L 491

J 1059

HE 1341

J 1027

!

! !

!

!

!

!

76°30' 74°30'

44°30'

43°30'

Watertown

Lowville

Forestport

Oswego

Old Forge

Number is well number assigned by

U.S. Geological Survey; one- or twoletter prefix denotes county.

EXPLANATION

Limestone/dolostone

Water

Shale/siltstone/sandstone

City

Production well

!J 1027

J 179

Residential well

Metamorphosed igneous/sedimentary

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, Seamless Data Distribution System,

accessed in 2009 at http://seamless.usgs.gov 

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18

Bedrock Geology from New York State Museum, 1:250,000

0 10 20 5 Miles

0 10 20 5 Kilometers

Figure 4. Generalized bedrock geology of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York study area and locations of the 

10 wells completed in bedrock that were sampled in 2008. (Well data are given in table A1, at end of report.) 
8 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

field blanks and one replicate sample—were collected for 

quality assurance and quality control, as required for the 

Federal 305(b) program. 

The wells were identified through (1) the USGS GroundWater Site Inventory (GWSI) database, (2) the NYSDEC 

Water-Well Reporting Program, or (3) information from State 

and County health departments. The Water-Well Reporting 

Program was implemented in 2000 to collect information on 

well construction, geology, and yield for newly drilled wells 

throughout New York from licensed well drillers; the resulting 

database provides useful information for groundwater studies. 

A letter requesting permission to sample the water was sent 

to owners of residential wells that were identified as potential 

sampling sites; the letter described the project and included 

a questionnaire asking the location of the well, the most 

convenient times for sampling, any safety concerns around the 

well, and other information. Production wells were identified 

through the NYSDOH and by local water managers of villages 

and cities throughout the study area. The water managers were 

sent a project description and a questionnaire similar to those 

sent to residential well owners. Well owners who responded 

favorably were contacted by telephone to clarify information 

about the wells and to arrange sampling dates. 

Sampling Methods

Sampling was done at all sites as follows: the well pump 

was turned on (many of the production wells were pumped for 

at least 1 hour prior to sampling) and 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. 

Domestic wells that had been used recently required removal 

of less than three well-casing volumes (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2006). A raw-water tap between the well and the 

pressure tank was opened, and the water was allowed to flush 

for several minutes. During this time, a visual evaluation 

of the area surrounding the well was conducted to identify 

potential sources of contamination that could affect the well 

water. Samples were collected from the raw-water tap to 

avoid all water-treatment systems and to ensure that the water 

collected was representative of the aquifer. The raw-water 

samples were collected prior to any disinfection treatments. 

A Teflon discharge line was then connected to the tap, and 

samples were analyzed with a multiprobe meter for physical 

properties (temperature, specific conductance, dissolvedoxygen concentration, and pH). After the measurements of 

these properties had stabilized, a second Teflon discharge line 

with a stainless-steel quick-connect fitting was connected to 

the first Teflon discharge line and was directed into a samplecollection chamber mounted on a plastic box; this chamber 

was used to minimize sample exposure to dust and other 

potential sources of contamination. Bottles were filled in the 

chamber according to standard USGS field methods (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2006). 

The analyses for physical properties, most trace elements 

and metals, acid-neutralizing capacity, organic carbon, 

radon-222, VOCs, and phenols were done on unfiltered water 

samples to obtain total whole-water concentrations. Dissolved 

concentrations of nutrients, major inorganic constituents, three 

metals, and pesticides were obtained from filtered samples. 

Concentrations of iron and manganese in unfiltered samples 

were compared with those in filtered samples to obtain the 

difference between the total and dissolved concentrations 

(table A6). Sulfuric acid was added to the samples collected 

for phenol analysis, hydrochloric acid was added to samples 

collected for total organic carbon and VOC analyses, and nitric 

acid was added to some of the samples collected for traceelement analyses to prevent sample degradation. Samples 

collected for dissolved inorganic-compound analyses were 

filtered through a 0.45-micrometer (μm) cellulose capsule 

filter that was attached to the Teflon discharge line inside the 

sample-collection chamber; samples for pesticide analysis 

were filtered through a 0.7-μm furnace-baked glass-fiber plate 

filter by the methods of Wilde and others (2004).

All Teflon discharge lines were cleaned in the laboratory 

before each sampling day and in the field between each 

sample collection. New sample-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 in sterile containers provided by the 

bacteriological laboratory; the connection of the sampling tube 

to the well tap was not sterilized. The samples were stored on 

ice in coolers and delivered directly, or shipped by overnight 

delivery to laboratories for analysis.

Analytical Methods 

Samples were analyzed for 223 physical properties 

and constituents, including inorganic constituents, nutrients, 

trace elements, radionuclides, pesticides and pesticide 

degradates, VOCs, and bacteria. Physical properties such 

as water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen concentration, 

and specific conductance were measured at the sampling 

site. Inorganic constituents, nutrients, trace elements, radon222, pesticides and pesticide degradates, and VOCs were 

analyzed at the USGS NWQL in Denver, Colo.; additional 

pesticide and pesticide degradates were analyzed at the USGS 

OGRL in Lawrence, Kans. Total organic carbon and phenolic 

compounds were analyzed at a private laboratory in Melville, 

N.Y., and indicator bacteria were analyzed at a private 

laboratory in Watertown, N.Y.; both laboratories are certified 

by NYSDOH. 

Anion concentrations were measured by ion-exchange 

chromatography, and cation concentrations were measured 

by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry 

(ICP-AES), as described in Fishman (1993). Nutrients 

were analyzed by colorimetry, as described by Fishman 

(1993), and Kjeldahl digestion with photometric finish, as 
Groundwater Quality 9

described by Patton and Truitt (2000). Mercury concentrations 

were measured through cold vapor–atomic fluorescence 

spectrometry according to methods described by Garbarino 

and Damrau (2001). Arsenic, chromium, and nickel analyses 

used collision/reaction cell inductively coupled plasma-mass 

spectrometry (cICPMS) as described by Garbarino and others 

(2006). The remaining trace elements were analyzed 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 traceelement analyses described by Hoffman and others (1996) 

were followed. Radon-222 was measured through liquidscintillation 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 through 

gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and highperformance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry 

(HPLC-MS), as described by Zaugg and others (1995), 

Furlong and others (2001), and Sandstrom and others (2001). 

Acetamide pesticide parent compounds and degradationproduct analyses were done by liquid chromatography-mass 

spectrometry (LC-MS) at the USGS OGRL according to 

methods described by Lee and Strahan (2003). VOCs were 

analyzed by GC-MS by using methods described by Connor 

and others (1998). 

Concentrations of total organic carbon were measured by 

method SW-846 9060 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2004), and total phenolic compounds were analyzed by U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) method 420.2 

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

bacteria samples were tested for total coliform, fecal coliform, 

and Escherichia coli (E. coli) through Standard Method 9222 

(American Public Health Association, 2005). A heterotrophic 

plate count test (SM 9215 B) also was done. 

In addition to the 18 groundwater samples, one blank 

sample and two sequential replicate samples were collected 

for quality assurance. Nitrogen-purged VOC/pesticide-grade 

blank water and inorganic-grade blank water supplied by 

the USGS-NWQL were used for a laboratory equipment 

blank before environmental-sample collection began. The 

water for unfiltered constituents was run through a piece of 

the Teflon tubing used for sampling; water for filtered-water 

constituents was pumped through the Teflon tubing into 

cleaned, preconditioned filters. Samples were acidified in 

the same manner as environmental well-water samples. The 

only constituent that exceeded laboratory reporting levels 

(LRLs) in the blank was sample color, which was measured at 

2 platinum-cobalt units. The differences from the sequential 

replicate samples were less than 5 percent for all constituent 

detections more than the LRL in the replicate samples except 

for color, zinc, and heterotrophic plate count, which were 

detected in one replicate sample at levels close to the LRL, 

where small differences in concentration make large relative 

percent-concentration differences. 

Groundwater Quality 

The 18 samples were analyzed for 223 constituents and 

physical properties. More than half (158) of these were not 

detected above the LRLs in any sample (appendix table A2). 

Results for the remaining 65 constituents and properties 

that were detected are in the appendix. The categories 

are as follows: physical properties (table A3), inorganic 

constituents (table A4), nutrients and total organic carbon 

(table A5), trace elements and radon-222 (table A6), pesticides 

(table A7), VOCs (table A8), and bacterial water-quality 

indicators (table A9). Some concentrations were reported as 

“estimated.” Estimated concentrations are typically reported 

where the detected value is less than the established LRL, or 

when recovery of a compound has been shown to be highly 

variable (Childress and others, 1999). Analytical results for 

selected constituents were compared with Federal and New 

York State drinking-water standards, which are typically 

identical. The standards include Maximum Contaminant 

Levels (MCLs), Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels 

(SMCLs), and Health Advisories (HAs) established by the 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002; 2004; 

2006) and the NYSDOH ( New York State Department of 

Health, 2007b). MCLs are enforceable standards that specify 

the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in public 

drinking water supplies; MCLs are not enforceable for private 

homeowner wells but are presented here as a guideline for 

evaluation of the water results. SMCLs are nonenforceable 

guidelines based on cosmetic and aesthetic criteria, such as 

taste and odor. HAs are estimates of acceptable drinking water 

levels for contaminants that can affect human health; HAs are 

nonenforceable guidelines that provide technical guidance for 

water use. 

The quality of the sampled groundwater was generally 

acceptable, although at 10 wells the concentrations of some 

constituents exceeded recommended MCLs, SMCLs, or HAs 

set by the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2006) and the NYSDOH (New York State Department 

of Health, 2007b). Most of the wells tested exceeded the 

USEPA proposed MCL for radon-222, which is generated 

from the natural decay of uranium. Other MCL exceedances 

generally involve taste or odor and included excessive 

hardness, aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, and sodium. 

These water-quality problems typically develop from natural 

interactions of water and rock minerals in the subsurface.

Physical Properties 

The temperature of the water ranged from 8.6o Celsius 

(C) to 16.6oC; the median was 10.6oC for sand and gravel 

wells and 12.2oC for bedrock wells. The pH of the samples 

(table A3) ranged from 6.5 to 9.1; the median was pH 7.0 

for sand and gravel wells and pH 7.8 for bedrock wells. One 

bedrock well had a pH of 9.1 that is outside the accepted 

USEPA SMCL range of pH 6.5 to 8.5 (U.S. Environmental 
10 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

Protection Agency, 2006). Specific conductance of the 

samples ranged from 49 to 1,760 microsiemens per 

centimeter (μS/cm); the median was 156 μS/cm for sand and 

gravel wells and 576 μS/cm for bedrock wells. Dissolvedoxygen concentrations ranged from less than 0.4 mg/L to 

9.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L): the median was 3.8 mg/L for 

sand and gravel wells and 0.7 mg/L for bedrock wells. The 

color of the samples range from less than 1 platinum-cobalt 

(Pt-Co) unit to 15 Pt-Co units. The median was 2 Pt-Co units 

for sand and gravel wells and 5 Pt-Co units for bedrock wells. 

Two samples (one sand and gravel and one bedrock) had a 

water color that equaled the USEPA SMCL and the NYSDOH 

MCL of 15 Pt-Co units. The odor of hydrogen sulfide gas, 

which may occur in the absence of oxygen, was noted by field 

personnel in water from 3 bedrock wells.

Major Ions 

The cations that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were calcium, magnesium, and sodium 

(tables 2 and A4). Calcium concentrations ranged from 1.59 

to 99.2 mg/L, and magnesium concentrations ranged from 

0.31 to 70.6 mg/L; calcium and magnesium contribute to 

water hardness. Sodium concentrations ranged from 1.30 to 

223 mg/L, and five samples exceeded the USEPA HA, which 

recommends that sodium concentrations in drinking water 

not exceed 60 mg/L. This HA for sodium is not federally 

enforceable but is intended as a guideline for consumers (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2002; 2006). 

The anions that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were bicarbonate (alkalinity), chloride, and 

sulfate (tables 2 and A4). Bicarbonate concentrations ranged 

from 20 to 368 mg/L (as CaCO3). Chloride concentrations 

ranged from 0.45 to 368 mg/L, and the USEPA SMCL and the 

NYSDOH MCL of 250 mg/L for chloride was exceeded in 

one bedrock well sample. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 

1.01 mg/L to 53.6 mg/L.

Water hardness in the basin ranged from 5 to 510 mg/L 

as CaCO3, and the median hardness was 90 mg/L as CaCO3. 

Many of the samples (12 out of 18) were soft to moderately 

hard (less than 120 mg/L as CaCO3); and 6 wells yielded water 

that was very hard (greater than 180 mg/L as CaCO3) (Hem, 

1985). Wells finished in bedrock were generally more hard 

(median 103 mg/L as CaCO3) than those finished in sand and 

gravel (median 71 mg/L as CaCO3).

Table 2. Summary statistics for concentrations of major ions in sand and gravel aquifers and bedrock aquifers in the Eastern Lake 

Ontario Basin of New York, 2008.

[Concentrations are in milligrams per liter. All samples represent filtered water; --, not applicable; E, estimated]

Constituent

Drinking 

water 

standard

Number of 

samples 

exceeding 

standard

Sand and gravel 

(8 samples)

Bedrock 

(10 samples)

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum

Cations

Calcium -- -- 5.24 24.1 99.2 1.59 25.1 97.3

Magnesium -- -- 1.24 3.47 9.16 0.31 7.73 70.6

Potassium -- -- 0.23 0.74 1.66 0.85 2.24 6.67

Sodium a60 5 1.30 2.42 30.5 2.98 69 223

Anions

Bicarbonate -- -- 20 84 343 39 248 368

Chloride b250 1 0.73 1.98 35 0.45 81.8 368

Fluoride c2.0–b2.2 0 <0.08 E0.09 0.28 0.16 0.54 1.65

Sulfate b,c250 0 3.23 5.89 14.6 1.01 14.35 53.6

Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 18 71 270 5 103 510

Alkalinity, mg/L as CaCO3 16 68.5 281 32 203 302

Residue on evaporation, mg/L 45 92 374 51 326 935

a

 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Drinking Water Advisory Taste Threshold.

b

 New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Maximum Contaminant Level.

c

 USEPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.
Groundwater Quality 11

Nutrients and Organic Carbon 

Nitrate and ammonia were the predominant nutrients 

present in the groundwater samples (tables 3 and A5); 

nitrite and organic nitrogen concentrations were negligible 

in most samples. Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations ranged 

from less than 0.04 (the LRL) to 8.31 mg/L as nitrogen (N); 

the median concentration was 0.42 mg/L in samples from 

sand and gravel wells and less than 0.04 mg/L in samples 

from bedrock wells. The nitrate MCL of 10 mg/L (as N) 

was not exceeded in any sample, and the concentrations in 

6 samples were less than the LRL. Nitrite was detected in 

only one sample at a concentration of 0.013 mg/L as N; the 

concentration of nitrite did not exceed the MCL (1 mg/L as 

N) in any sample. Ammonia concentrations ranged from less 

than 0.020 (the LRL) to 1.10 mg/L as N. Orthophosphate was 

detected in 14 samples, but concentrations were typically low; 

the maximum concentration was 0.067 mg/L as phosphorus 

(P). Total organic carbon was detected in 11 samples; 

concentrations ranged from less than 1.0 mg/L (the LRL) to 

3.2 mg/L.

Trace Elements and Radon-222 

The elements detected in the highest concentrations 

were aluminum, barium, boron, iron, lithium, manganese, and 

strontium. Aluminum, barium, boron, lithium, and strontium 

were generally present at higher concentrations in bedrock 

wells compared to sand and gravel wells (tables 4 and A6). 

Aluminum concentrations ranged from the LRL of less than 

4 micrograms per liter (μg/L) to 234 μg/L; the USEPA SMCL 

(50 μg/L) was exceeded in samples from two bedrock wells. 

Barium concentrations ranged from an estimate of the LRL of 

less than 0.6 μg/L to 250 μg/L. Boron concentrations ranged 

from 3.4 to 628 μg/L. Iron concentrations in filtered samples 

ranged from the LRL of less than 4 μg/L to 902 μg/L; the 

USEPA SMCL and the NYSDOH MCL for iron (300 μg/L) 

was exceeded in 4 filtered samples. Lithium concentrations 

ranged from an estimate of 0.5 μg/L to 311 μg/L. Manganese 

concentrations in filtered samples ranged from the LRL of 

less than 0.2 μg/L to 1,480 μg/L; the USEPA SMCL for 

manganese (50 μg/L) was exceeded in 3 filtered samples, and 

the NYSDOH MCL (300 μg/L) was exceeded in one filtered 

sample. Boron, lithium, molybdenum, strontium, and thallium 

were detected but no MCLs have been established for 

these elements.

Some trace elements were detected less frequently or at 

lower concentrations. Drinking-water standards for antimony, 

arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, 

selenium, thallium, uranium, and zinc were not exceeded; 

additionally mercury and silver were not detected in any 

sample (table A2). Cobalt and nickel were detected but no 

MCLs have been established for cobalt and nickel.

Radon-222 was detected in every sample (table A6), and 

activity ranged from 62 to 3,150 pCi/L. The median activity 

was 565 pCi/L in samples from sand and gravel wells and 

266 pCi/L in samples from bedrock wells. The proposed 

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

exceeded in 13 samples, but the proposed Alternate Maximum 

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

The AMCL is the proposed allowable activity of radon in rawwater samples where the State has implemented mitigation 

programs to address the health risks of radon in indoor air. 

The proposed MCL and AMCL for radon are under review 

and have not been adopted (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2004; 2006).

Table 3. Summary statistics for concentrations of major ions in sand and gravel aquifers and bedrock aquifers in the Eastern Lake 

Ontario Basin of New York, 2008.

[Concentrations are in milligrams per liter. All samples represent filtered water; --, not applicable; E, estimated]

Constituent

Drinking 

water 

standard

Number of 

samples 

exceeding 

standard

Sand and gravel 

(8 samples)

Bedrock 

(10 samples)

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum

Ammonia plus organic N, mg/L as N -- -- <0.10 <0.14 0.11 <0.10 0.15 1.80

Ammonia, mg/L as N -- -- <0.020 <0.020 0.102 <0.020 0.068 1.10

Nitrate plus nitrite, mg/L as N a,b10 0 E0.03 0.42 8.31 <0.04 <0.04 0.60

Nitrite, mg/L as N a,b1 0 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.013

Orthophosphate, mg/L as P -- -- E0.005 <0.006 0.015 <0.006 0.009 0.067

Total organic carbon, unfiltered, mg/L -- -- <1.0 1.0 1.8 <1.0 1.2 3.2

a

 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Drinking Water Advisory Taste Threshold.

b

 New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Maximum Contaminant Level.
12 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

Table 4. Summary statistics for concentrations of trace elements and radon-222 in sand and gravel aquifers and bedrock aquifers in 

the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008.

[All concentrations are in micrograms per liter except as noted. All samples unfiltered except as noted. pCi/L, picocuries per liter; --, not applicable; 

E, estimated; <, less than; M, measured but not quantified]

Constituent

Drinking 

water 

standard

Number of 

samples 

exceeding 

standard

Sand and gravel 

(8 samples)

Bedrock 

(10 samples)

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum

Aluminum c50 2 <4 <5 9 <4 7 234

Antimony a,b6 0 <0.1 <0.2 <0.4 <0.1 <0.1 E 0.1

Arsenic a10 0 <0.20 <0.60 1.8 <0.60 <0.60 4.8

Barium a,b2,000 0 1.1 8.0 45.7 <0.6 84.4 250

Beryllium a,b4 0 <0.02 <0.03 <0.04 <0.02 <0.04 <0.04

Boron, filtered -- -- 3.4 6.3 19 3.9 50 628

Cadmium a,b5 0 <0.01 <0.04 E 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Chromium a,b100 0 <0.40 <0.40 E 0.40 <0.40 <0.40 2.2

Cobalt -- -- <0.04 E 0.07 E 0.08 <0.04 <0.04 0.60

Copper c1,000 0 <4.0 <4.0 27.0 <1.2 2.9 12.5

Iron, filtered b,c300 4 <4 <8 902 <8 <8 808

Iron b,c300 5 <6 12 1,580 E 5 77 955

Lead d15 0 0.09 0.56 5.15 E 0.03 0.26 1.27

Lithium -- -- E 0.5 0.9 2.4 2.1 22 311

Manganese, filtered c50–b300 3 - 1 <0.2 0.6 1,480 <0.4 6.8 68.9

Manganese c50–b300 3 - 1 <0.4 <0.8 1,160 <0.4 11.3 79.7

Molybdenum -- -- E 0.1 0.1 0.3 M 0.7 2.2

Nickel -- -- <0.12 0.30 1.3 0.21 0.40 1.9

Selenium a,b50 0 <0.08 <0.08 E 0.08 <0.08 <0.08 0.14

Silver a,b100 0 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Strontium -- -- 21.6 44 169 22.2 859 5,070

Thallium -- -- <0.08 <0.10 <0.12 <0.08 <0.08 E 0.04

Zinc b,c5,000 0 <2.0 4.5 75.9 <2.0 3.2 7.2

Radon-222, pCi/L e300 13 410 565 1,290 62 266 3,150

Uranium a30 0 <0.020 0.131 0.231 <0.020 0.320 1.35

a

 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Maximum Contaminant Level.

b

 New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Maximum Contaminant Level.

c

 USEPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level.

d

 USEPA Treatment Technique.

e

 USEPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level.
Summary 13

Pesticides 

Five pesticides and related compounds (including three 

pesticide degradates) were detected in water from six wells 

(table A7), but none of the concentrations exceeded MCLs. 

Four of the samples containing pesticides were from sand 

and gravel aquifers, and two were from bedrock aquifers. 

Caffeine, which is not a pesticide, is measured as part of the 

pesticide analyses and can be an indicator of human wastes, 

and was detected in one sample (table A7). The pesticide 

compound that was detected most frequently was CIAT 

(2-chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine, also called 

deethylatrazine) and was detected in four samples at estimated 

concentrations ranging from E0.002 to E0.003 μg/L. CIAT is 

a degradation product of the herbicide atrazine. The maximum 

concentration of any pesticide related product was 0.03 μg/L 

(metolachlor ESA, a degradation product of the herbicide 

metolachlor). Three pesticides and degradates were detected 

once: Metolachlor OA (a degradation product of metolachlor) 

(0.02 μg/L), cis-permethrin (estimate 0.001μg/L), and 

prometon (0.01 μg/L). No Federal MCLs currently (2010) 

have been established for pesticide degradation products, and 

no pesticide concentration exceeded USEPA or NYSDOH 

MCLs. These trace-level detections of pesticides are similar 

to those reported by Phillips and others (1999), Eckhardt 

and Stackelberg (1995), and Eckhardt and others (2001) 

from studies of pesticides in groundwater throughout New 

York State.

Volatile Organic Compounds and 

Phenolic Compounds 

Six VOCs were detected in nine samples, three were 

from sand and gravel wells and six were from bedrock wells 

(table A8). Toluene was detected in one production well 

(J1118) and 5 residential wells: the maximum concentration 

was 0.3 μg/L. Benzene was detected in one residential 

bedrock well; the concentration was 0.2 μg/L. Xylene 

compounds were detected in one residential bedrock well; 

the concentration was estimated at 0.2 μg/L for the meta

plus para isomers. Trichloromethane (chloroform) was 

detected in two production wells (J180 and J179) and two 

residential wells; the maximum concentration was 1.2 μg/L. 

Bromodichloromethane was detected in one residential 

bedrock well at 0.1 μg/L. These two compounds are called 

trihalomethanes and are typically formed as by-products 

when chlorine or bromine is used to disinfect water. The 

NYSDOH MCL of 80 μg/L for total trihalomethanes was 

not exceeded, however the MCL goal of zero for chloroform 

and bromodichloromethane was exceeded in four wells. 

Tetrachloromethane was detected in one residential bedrock 

well; the concentration was 0.3 μg/L. Phenolic compounds, 

which are semivolatile, were not detected in any sample 

(table A2). Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline 

additive that can infiltrate into groundwater from leaking fuel 

tanks, was not detected in any sample (table A2). 

Bacteria 

All samples were analyzed for total coliform, fecal 

coliform, E. coli, and heterotrophic bacteria. Total coliform 

was detected in three samples; fecal coliform and E. coli were 

not detected (table A9). Coliform bacteria were detected in 

one sample from a sand and gravel well and in two samples 

from bedrock wells; two of the samples were from private 

residential wells, and one was from a production well (OW 

1599, fig. 1), which taps a sand and gravel aquifer. The 

NYSDOH and USEPA MCL for total coliform bacteria 

is exceeded when 5 percent of samples of finished water 

collected in 1 month test positive for total coliform (if 40 or 

more samples are collected per month) or when 2 samples 

are positive for total coliform (if fewer than 40 samples are 

collected per month). Heterotrophic plate counts (HPCs) 

ranged from less than 1 (absent) to 740 colony-forming 

units per milliliter (CFU/mL). The USEPA MCL for HPC is 

500 CFU/mL, and 1 sample for a residential bedrock well 

exceeded this limit. 

Summary 

The USGS, in cooperation with the NYSDEC and the 

USEPA, began an assessment of groundwater quality in 

bedrock and sand and gravel aquifers throughout New York 

State in 2001. As a part of this assessment, water samples 

were collected at nine production wells and nine private 

residential wells in the Eastern Lake Ontario tributary basins 

from August through October 2008. Water samples were 

analyzed for 223 physical properties and constituents that 

included inorganic major ions, nutrients, organic carbon, trace 

elements, radon-222, pesticides, VOCs, phenolic compounds, 

and bacteria. The quality of the sampled groundwater was 

generally acceptable, although at 10 wells the concentrations 

of at least 1 constituent exceeded recommended MCLs, 

SMCLs, or HAs set by the USEPA and the NYSDOH. Of 

the 59 chemical constituents that were detected, 5 inorganic 

elements or ions exceeded Federal and State MCLs, SMCLs, 

or HAs at 8 wells; 2 types of bacteria were detected in 

concentrations that exceeded MCLs at 4 wells; color exceeded 

the USEPA SMCL and the NYSDOH MCL at 2 wells, and 

1 well had a pH outside the accepted USEPA SMCL range. In 

addition, 2 organic chemicals detected had associated State 

reporting requirements at 2 wells, and the radioactive isotope 

radon-222 was detected at concentrations that exceed an 

USEPA proposed MCL at 13 wells. 

The cations that were detected in the highest 

concentrations were calcium, magnesium, and sodium; 

the anions that were detected in the highest concentrations 
14 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008

were bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate. The predominant 

nutrients were nitrate and ammonia; no sample exceeded the 

MCL (10 mg/L as N) for nitrate. The Health Advisory for 

sodium in drinking water (60 mg/L) was exceeded in 5 of 

the 18 samples; and the Federal SMCL and State MCL for 

chloride (250 mg/L) was exceeded in 1 sample. Two samples 

had a water color that equaled the Federal SMCL and the State 

MCL (15 platinum-cobalt units). 

The trace elements detected in the highest concentrations 

were aluminum, barium, boron, iron, lithium, manganese, and 

strontium; for all trace elements, only aluminum, iron, and 

manganese concentrations exceeded SMCLs. Aluminum was 

detected in 8 samples, and the SMCL (50 μg/L) was exceeded 

twice. Iron was detected in 10 of the 18 filtered samples, 

and the Federal SMCL and State MCL for iron (300 μg/L) 

was exceeded in 4 samples. Manganese was detected in 

13 filtered samples; the USEPA SMCL (50 μg/L) was 

exceeded in 3 filtered samples and the State MCL (300 μg/L) 

was exceeded in 1 filtered sample. Barium was detected in 

17 samples, but the Federal and State MCL (2,000 μg/L) 

was not exceeded. Boron, lithium, and strontium were each 

detected in all 18 samples, but no MCLs have been established 

for these elements. Radon-222 was detected in every sample; 

the proposed Federal MCL for radon-222 in drinking water 

(300 pCi/L) was exceeded in 13 samples, but the proposed 

AMCL (4,000 pCi/L) was not exceeded in any sample. 

Five pesticides or degradates, were detected in water 

from 6 of the 18 wells; most of the concentrations were at 

or near the detection limits, and no concentration exceeded 

an MCL. Four of the samples containing pesticides were 

from sand and gravel aquifers, and two were from bedrock 

aquifers. Six VOCs were detected in nine samples, and no 

concentration exceeded an MCL. Two production wells tested 

positive for compounds that triggered a New York State 

Sanitary Code reporting requirement, prometon (a pesticide) 

and toluene (a VOC). Any detection of total coliform or fecal 

coliform bacteria is considered a potential violation of New 

York State MCLs; in this study, total coliform was detected in 

three samples; E. coli and fecal coliform were not detected. 

Heterotrophic plate counts exceeded the MCL of 500 CFU/mL 

in 1 sample. 

References Cited 

American Public Health Association, 2005, Standard 

methods for the examination of water and wastewater 

(21st 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, at 

http://www.astm.org. 

Broughton, J.G., Fisher, D.W., Isachsen, Y.W., Rickard, L.V., 

and Offield, T.W., 1962, The geology of New York State: 

Albany, New York State Museum—Geological Survey, Map 

and Chart Series no. 5, 5 sheets, scale 1:250,000. 

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.

Cadwell, D.H., and Muller, E.H., 1986, Surficial geologic 

map of New York: Albany, New York State Museum—

Geological Survey, Map and Chart Series no. 40, 5 sheets, 

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

1998, from New York State Geological Survey 90-meter 

Digital Elevation Model.

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. 

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

shadows on hills: Science, v. 152, p. 1,617–1,619.

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. 

Crain, L.J., 1975, Chemical quality of groundwater in the 

western Oswego River Basin: New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation, Basin Planning Report 

ORB–3, 69 p.

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.

Eckhardt, D.A., Reddy, J.E., and Shaw, S.B., 2009, 

Groundwater quality in central New York, 2007: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1257, 40 p., at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1257/.

Eckhardt, D.A., Reddy, J.E., and Tamulonis, K.L., 2007, 

Ground-water quality in the Genesee River Basin, New 

York, 2005–06: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2007–1093, 26 p., at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1093/.

Eckhardt, D.A., Reddy, J.E., and Tamulonis, K.L., 2008, 

Ground-water quality in western New York, 2006: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1140, 36 p., at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1140/.
References Cited 15

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. 1,019–1,033.

Fairchild, H.L., 1928, Geologic story of the Genesee Valley 

and drainage history of central New York: Rochester, Gas 

and Electric News, July 1926 to July 1928.

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 OpenFile Report 93–125, 217 p. 

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 Water-Resources 

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 Investigation 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, sec. B, chap.1, 

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 wholewater digests using inductively coupled plasma-optical 

emission spectrometry and inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 98–165, 101 p. 

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): 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 04–1329, 19 p., at http://ny.water.

usgs.gov/pubs/of/of041329/. 

Hetcher-Aguila, K.K. and Eckhardt, D.A., 2006, Groundwater quality in the upper Susquehanna River basin, New 

York, 2004–05: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

06–1161, 20 p., at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1161/. 

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., 2000, Geology of New York—A 

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

Museum—Geological Survey, 294 p.

Kantrowitz, I.H., 1970, Chemical quality of ground water 

in the eastern Oswego River basin: New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation, Basin Planning 

Report ORB–2, 129 p.

Kontis, A.L., Randall, A.D., and Mazzaferro, D.L., 2004, 

Regional hydrology and simulation of flow of stratified-drift 

aquifers in the glaciated northeastern United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1415–C. 156 p.

Lee, E.A. and Strahan, A.P., 2003, Determination of acetamide 

herbicides and their degradation products in water using 

online solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/

mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03–173, 17 p.

Miller, T.S., 1982, Geology and ground-water resources of 

Oswego County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 81–60, 37 p.

Miller, T.S., 1988, Unconsolidated aquifers in upstate New 

York – Finger Lakes sheet: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 87–4122, 1 sheet, scale 

1:250,000.

Miller, T.S., 1990, Sand and gravel aquifers of Schuyler 

County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 90–4073, 1 sheet, scale 

1:48,000.

Miller, T.S., Sherwood, D.A., and Krebs, M.M., 1989, 

Hydrogeology and water quality of the Tug Hill Glacial 

Aquifer in northern New York: U. S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 88–4014, 60 p.

New York State Department of Health, 2007a, Public water 

systems – Codes, rules, and regulations: Troy, N.Y., Bureau 

of Public Water Supply Protection, accessed October 2007, 

at http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/water/

drinking/part5/subpart5.htm.

New York State Department of Health, 2007b, Public water 

systems—Maximum Contaminant Levels: Troy, N.Y., 

Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection, accessed January 

2009, at http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/water/part5/

tables.htm.

Nystrom, E.A., 2006, Ground-water quality in the Lake 

Champlain basin, New York, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 06–1088, 22 p., at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2006/1088/.
16 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Nystrom, E.A., 2007a, Ground-water quality in the St. 

Lawrence River basin, New York, 2005–2006: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1066, 33 p., at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1066/.

Nystrom, E.A., 2007b, Ground-water quality in the Delaware 

River basin, New York, 2001 and 2005–2006: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1098, 36 p., at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1098/.

Nystrom, E.A., 2008, Ground-water quality in the Mohawk 

River basin, New York, 2006: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2008–1086, 33 p., at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2008/1086/.

Nystrom, E.A., 2009, Ground-water quality in the Upper 

Hudson River basin, New York, 2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2009–1240, 37 p., at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2009/1240/.

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. 

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: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4098, 

70 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. Department of Commerce, 2000, Redistricting Census 

2000: Washington D.C., Bureau of the Census Geography 

Division, accessed January 2009, at http://www.census.gov/

geo/www/index.html.

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., Office of Water, EPA 841–B–97–002A 

and EPA 841–B–97–002B, PL 95–217, 271 p.

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 January 2009, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/

radon/proposal.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, Drinking water 

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

of Water, EPA 822–R–06–013, Oct. 2006, 12 p.

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, chapters A1–A9, at http://pubs.

water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples 

(ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, September, 

accessed March 4, 2010, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/

twri9A4/.

Waller, R.M. and Ayer, G.R., 1975, Water resources of the 

Black River Basin, New York: U.S. Geological Survey 

in cooperation with New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation . Basin Planning Report 

BRB–1, 205 p.

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 

eds., 2004, Processing of water samples: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chap. A5 [variously paged].

Zarriello, P.J., 1993, Determination of the contributing area 

to six municipal groundwater supplies in the Tug Hill 

glacial aquifer of northern New York, with emphasis on the 

Lacona-Sandy Creek well field: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 90–4145, 51 p.

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. 
Appendix 1–9 17

Appendixes 1–9

Table A1. Information on wells sampled in Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008...........18

Table A2. Compounds for which groundwater samples were analyzed but not detected..........19

Table A3. Physical properties of groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008........................................................................................................................23

Table A4. Concentrations of inorganic constituents in groundwater samples from Eastern 

Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008....................................................................................24

Table A5. Concentrations of nutrients and total organic carbon in groundwater samples 

from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008............................................................26

Table A6. Concentrations of trace elements and radon-222 in groundwater samples from 

Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008.....................................................................27

Table A7. Concentrations of pesticides detected in groundwater samples from Eastern 

Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008....................................................................................30

Table A8. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in groundwater samples from 

Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008.....................................................................31

Table A9. Concentrations of bacteria in unfiltered groundwater samples from Eastern 

Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008....................................................................................32
18 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A1. Information on wells sampled in Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. --, information not available]

Well 

number1

U.S. Geological Survey 

site identifier

Date 

sampled

Basin 

name2

Well 

type3

Well depth, 

feet below 

land surface

Casing depth, 

feet below 

land surface

Physiographic 

province

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 434235074562201 8/27/2008 BR R 88 87.5 Adirondack Upland

J 180 434840076014001 9/17/2008 MNO P 20 15 Tug Hill Upland

J 1118 434239076032202 10/1/2008 MNO P 30 22 Tug Hill Upland

L 177 435400075180001 9/24/2008 BR P 33 28 Adirondack Upland

L 178 433700075220001 10/21/2008 BR P 17 12 Adirondack Upland

L 179 432959075430801 10/22/2008 MNO R 65 65 Tug Hill Upland

L 386 434400075282001 9/2/2008 BR P 38 20 Lake Ontario Lowland

OW 1599 433027075591701 10/1/2008 MNO P 56 46 Tug Hill Upland

Bedrock wells

HE 628 433031074541401 9/3/2008 BR R 285 170 Adirondack Upland

HE 1341 434904074552101 8/26/2008 BR R 180 42 Adirondack Upland

J 179 440202076023201 9/10/2008 CPR P 100 -- Lake Ontario Lowland

J 181 435800075400001 9/24/2008 BR P 120 60 Lake Ontario Lowland

J 1027 441422075501801 9/9/2008 CPR R 58 23 Lake Ontario Lowland

J 1059 435310075483801 9/10/2008 MNO R 300 20 Tug Hill Upland

L 491 434713075452801 9/17/2008 BR R 125 47 Tug Hill Upland

OE 1991 432652075121601 10/7/2008 BR P 700 63 Adirondack Upland

OW 918 432346076152601 9/30/2008 MNO R 70 32 Lake Ontario Lowland

OW 1052 432948076114501 9/23/2008 MNO R 62 10 Lake Ontario Lowland

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number assigned by U.S. 

Geological Survey.

2

 BR, Black River; CPR, Chaumont River – Perch River; MNO, Mid-Northern Lake Ontario.

3

 P, Production well; R, Residential well.
Table A2 19

Table A2. Compounds for which groundwater samples were analyzed but not detected.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS 

parameter code Constituent Laboratory reporting level1

,

micrograms per liter

Trace elements in unfiltered water

71900 Mercury 0.010

01077 Silver, unfiltered 0.02–0.06

Pesticides in filtered water

04038 2-Chloro-6-ethylamino-4-amino-s-triazine (CEAT) 0.06–0.08

62850 2-[(2-Ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino]-2-oxo-ESA 0.02

50355 2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-ethylamino-s-triazine (OIET) 0.040–0.060

50470 2,4-D methyl ester 0.200–0.040

66496 2,4-D plus 2,4-D methyl ester 0.02

39732 2,4-D 0.02–0.06

38746 2,4-DB 0.02

82660 2,6-Diethylaniline 0.002–0.006

49308 3-Hydroxy carbofuran 0.040

49260 Acetochlor 0.006–0.02

61029 Acetochlor ethanesulfonic acid 0.02

61030 Acetochlor oxanilic acid 0.02

63782 Acetochlor second amide 0.02

62847 Acetochlor sulfynilacetic acid 0.02

49315 Acifluorfen 0.040

46342 Alachlor 0.005–0.006

50009 Alachlor ESA 0.02

62849 Alachlor ESA second amide 0.02

61031 Alachlor oxanilic acid 0.02

63781 Alachlor second amide 0.02

62848 Alachlor sulfynilacetic acid 0.02

49313 Aldicarb sulfone 0.08

49314 Aldicarb sulfoxide 0.060

49312 Aldicarb 0.12

34253 alpha-HCH 0.002–0.008

39632 Atrazine 0.007

82686 Azinphos-methyl 0.120

50299 Bendiocarb 0.04

82673 Benfluralin 0.004–0.014

50300 Benomyl 0.040–0.060

61693 Bensulfuron methyl 0.06

38711 Bentazon 0.04–0.06

04029 Bromacil 0.02–0.06

49311 Bromoxynil 0.12

04028 Butylate 0.002

49310 Carbaryl 0.04

49309 Carbofuran 0.020–0.040

61188 Chloramben methyl ester 0.10
20 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A2. Compounds for which groundwater samples were analyzed but not detected.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS 

parameter code Constituent Laboratory reporting level1

,

micrograms per liter

Pesticides in filtered water—Continued

50306 Chlorimuron 0.080

38933 Chlorpyrifos 0.005–0.010

49305 Clopyralid 0.06

04041 Cyanazine 0.020–0.040

04031 Cycloate 0.02–0.04

49304 Dacthal monoacid 0.02–0.04

82682 DCPA 0.003–0.006

63778 Dechloroacetochlor 0.02

63777 Dechloroalachlor 0.02

63779 Dechlorodimethenamid 0.02

63780 Dechlorometolachlor 0.02

62170 Desulfinyl fipronil 0.012

39572 Diazinon 0.005

38442 Dicamba 0.04 

49302 Dichlorprop 0.02–0.04

39381 Dieldrin 0.009

61951 Dimethenamid ethanesulfonic acid 0.02

62482 Dimethenamid oxanilic acid 0.02

61588 Dimethenamid 0.02

49301 Dinoseb 0.04

04033 Diphenamid 0.04

82677 Disulfoton 0.04

49300 Diuron 0.04

82668 EPTC 0.002

82663 Ethalfluralin 0.009

82672 Ethoprop 0.012–0.016

62169 Desulfinylfipronil amide 0.029

49297 Fenuron 0.04–0.06

62167 Fipronil sulfide 0.013

62168 Fipronil sulfone 0.024

62166 Fipronil 0.020–0.040

61952 Flufenacet ethanesulfonic acid 0.02

62483 Flufenacet oxanilic acid 0.02

62481 Flufenacet 0.02

61694 Flumetsulam 0.06

38811 Fluometuron 0.04

04095 Fonofos 0.010

63784 Hydroxyacetochlor 0.02

63783 Hydroxyalachlor 0.02

63785 Hydroxymetolachlor 0.02

64045 Hydroxydimethenamid 0.02
Table A2 21

Table A2. Compounds for which groundwater samples were analyzed but not detected.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS 

parameter code Constituent Laboratory reporting level1

,

micrograms per liter

Pesticides in filtered water—Continued

50356 Imazaquin 0.04–0.06

50407 Imazethapyr 0.04–0.06

61695 Imidacloprid 0.060

39341 Lindane 0.006 – 0.014

38478 Linuron 0.02–0.04

39532 Malathion 0.016–0.020

38482 MCPA 0.04–0.06

38487 MCPB 0.06 – 0.20

50359 Metalaxyl 0.02 – 0.04

39415 Metalochlor 0.010–0.02

38501 Methiocarb 0.040

49296 Methomyl 0.120

82667 Methyl parathion 0.008

82630 Metribuzin 0.012–0.016

61697 Metsulfuron 0.14

82671 Molinate 0.002

61692 N-(4-Chlorophenyl)-N'-methylurea 0.06–0.12

82684 Napropamide 0.018

49294 Neburon 0.02

50364 Nicosulfuron 0.10

49293 Norflurazon 0.02–0.04

49292 Oryzalin 0.04

38866 Oxamyl 0.12

34653 p,p'-DDE 0.003

39542 Parathion 0.010–0.020

82669 Pebulate 0.004–0.016

82683 Pendimethalin 0.012 

82664 Phorate 0.020–0.040

49291 Picloram 0.12

82676 Propyzamide 0.004

04024 Propachlor 0.006–0.02

62766 Propachlor ethanesulfonic acid 0.05

62767 Propachlor oxanilic acid 0.02

82679 Propanil 0.006–0.014

82685 Propargite 0.02–0.04

49236 Propham 0.040

50471 Propiconazole 0.04

38538 Propoxur 0.040–0.060

38548 Siduron 0.02–0.04

04035 Simazine 0.006–0.010

50337 Sulfometuron 0.060
22 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A2. Compounds for which groundwater samples were analyzed but not detected.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS 

parameter code Constituent Laboratory reporting level1

,

micrograms per liter

Pesticides in filtered water—Continued

82670 Tebuthiuron 0.02

82665 Terbacil 0.018–0.040

82675 Terbufos 0.02

82681 Thiobencarb 0.010–0.016

82678 Triallate 0.006

49235 Triclopyr 0.08

82661 Trifluralin 0.006–0.012

Volatile organic compounds, in unfiltered water

34506 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.1

34496 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.1

34501 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.1

77652 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113) 0.1

34536 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.1

32103 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.2

34541 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.1

34566 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.1

34571 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1

34301 Chlorobenzene 0.1

77093 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.1

32105 Dibromochloromethane 0.2

34668 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.2

34423 Dichloromethane 0.2

81576 Diethyl ether 0.2

81577 Diisopropyl ether 0.2

34371 Ethylbenzene 0.1

78032 Methyl tert-butyl ether 0.2

50005 Methyl tert-pentyl ether 0.2

77135 o-Xylene 0.1

77128 Styrene 0.1

50004 tert-Butyl ethyl ether 0.1

34475 Tetrachloroethene 0.1

34546 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.1

32104 Tribromomethane 0.2

39180 Trichloroethene 0.1

34488 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.2

39175 Vinyl Choride 0.2

32730 Total Phenolic Compounds 4.0

1

 Defined in “Conversion Factor” section.
Table A3 23

Table A3. Physical properties of groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. mg/L, milligrams per liter; <, less than; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25° Celsius; (00080), National Water 

Information System (NWIS) parameter code; M, measured but not quantified. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

Well number1

Water color, 

filtered, 

platinum cobalt 

units

(00080)

Dissolved-oxygen 

concentration, 

field, 

mg/L

(00300)

pH, field, 

standard 

units

(00400)

Specific 

conductance, 

field, μS/cm

(00095)

Water

temperature,

degrees Celsius

(00010)

Hydrogen

sulfide

(71875)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 2 2.2 6.8 95 13.6 Absent

J 180 <1 4.0 7.1 647 11.0 Absent

J 1118 2 2.4 6.7 191 12.6 Absent

L 177 2 9.5 6.5 49 8.6 Absent

L 178 10 9.4 8.1 121 8.9 Absent

L 179 10 1.0 6.8 114 11.6 Absent

L 386 2 7.0 7.3 454 10.2 Absent

OW 1599 15 3.5 7.4 227 9.1 Absent

Bedrock wells

HE 628 <1 4.3 8.3 77 11.8 Absent

HE 1341 <1 7.8 7.7 74 10.4 Absent

J 179 5 1.7 7.1 1,010 11.0 Absent

J 181 2 <.4 7.5 472 9.5 M

J 1027 8 <.4 7.1 457 16.5 M

J 1059 15 1.0 7.8 1,070 12.6 Absent

L 491 2 <.4 9.1 1,000 13.9 Absent

OE 1991 5 1.8 8.5 505 8.6 Absent

OW 918 10 <.4 7.4 1,760 14.9 Absent

OW 1052 5 <.4 8.5 646 16.6 M

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number assigned by 

U.S. Geological Survey.
24 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A4. Concentrations of inorganic constituents in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. mg/L, milligrams per liter; (00900), USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; 

CaCO3, calcium carbonate. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

Well number1

Hardness 

filtered, 

mg/L as CaCO3, 

(00900)

Calcium, 

filtered,

 mg/L 

(00915)

Magnesium, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00925)

Potassium, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00935)

Sodium, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00930)

Acidneutralizing 

capacity2, 

unfiltered, 

mg/L as CaCO3 

(90410)

Alkalinity2, 

filtered, 

mg/L as CaCO3

(29801)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 38 10.5 2.88 0.89 2.83 41 41

J 180 270 99.2 6.24 1.56 30.5 280 281

J 1118 84 27.7 3.66 1.66 5.34 83 82

L 177 18 5.24 1.24 0.70 1.59 16 16

L 178 57 20.5 1.33 0.55 1.84 53 53

L 179 52 15.5 3.27 0.23 1.30 54 55

L 386 210 78.2 4.05 0.88 4.15 176 175

OW 1599 110 30.0 9.16 0.47 2.01 108 109

Bedrock wells

HE 628 30 9.35 1.63 1.10 2.98 34 33

HE 1341 27 8.00 1.70 0.85 3.81 32 32

J 179 310 97.3 15.6 2.09 84.7 249 249

J 181 190 53.4 13.4 2.40 21.4 196 197

J 1027 230 72.2 11.4 1.84 3.85 209 209

J 1059 51 13.6 4.05 6.67 215 301 302

L 491 5 1.59 0.31 2.72 223 195 195

OE 1991 96 32.6 3.67 1.66 53.3 43 43

OW 918 510 87.9 70.6 5.77 150 279 280

OW 1052 110 17.6 14.8 4.89 99.5 250 252
Table A4 25

Table A4. Concentrations of inorganic constituents in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New 

York, 2008.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. mg/L, milligrams per liter; (00900), USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter 

code; CaCO3, calcium carbonate. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

Well number1

Bicarbonate,3

filtered, 

mg/L as CaCO3

(29805)

Chloride, 

filtered, 

mg/L

(00940)

Fluoride, 

filtered, 

mg/L

(00950)

Silica, 

filtered, 

mg/L 

(00955)

Sulfate, 

filtered 

mg/L 

(00945)

Residue on 

evaporation, 

at 180° Celsius, 

filtered, 

mg/L

(70300)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 50 0.73 0.28 22.2 4.91 77

J 180 343 35.0 E .10 6.25 12.4 374

J 1118 100 5.61 < .08 5.94 6.14 106

L 177 20 1.23 0.13 12.7 5.63 45

L 178 65 1.76 E .10 11.8 5.20 72

L 179 67 0.83 < .08 6.77 3.23 70

L 386 214 11.6 E .07 6.75 14.6 291

OW 1599 133 2.19 < .08 7.77 7.45 121

Bedrock wells

HE 628 40 0.45 0.31 15.2 3.75 55

HE 1341 39 0.81 0.59 21.6 2.98 51

J 179 304 166 0.21 6.18 19.9 575

J 181 240 24.4 0.49 8.64 17.8 261

J 1027 255 0.66 0.94 8.44 35.3 281

J 1059 368 150 1.09 8.44 1.01 600

L 491 238 225 1.65 6.55 1.40 593

OE 1991 52 112 0.42 13.4 17.1 287

OW 918 342 368 0.16 14.2 53.6 935

OW 1052 307 51.7 0.92 9.95 11.6 364

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number 

assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.

2

 Fixed-endpoint titration at pH 4.5.

3

 Calculated from alkalinity.
26 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A5. Concentrations of nutrients and total organic carbon in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario 

Basin, New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; <, less than; (00623), National 

Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; E, estimated value—constituent was detected in the sample but with low or 

inconsistent recovery]

Well number1

Ammonia 

plus organic 

nitrogen, 

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

HE 1367 <0.14 <0.020 0.48 <0.002 0.015 1.8

J 180 <.14 <.020 0.51 <.002 <.006 1.4

J 1118 <.10 <.020 0.46 <.002 <.024 1.0

L 177 <.14 <.020 0.29 <.002 0.007 <1.0

L 178 <.10 <.020 0.37 <.002 E .008 <1.0

L 179 <.10 <.020 E .03 <.002 E .005 <1.0

L 386 <.14 <.020 8.31 <.002 <.006 1.1

OW 1599 0.11 0.102 0.17 <.002 E .005 <1.0

Bedrock wells

HE 628 <.14 <.020 0.60 <.002 0.067 <1.0

HE 1341 <.14 <.020 0.50 <.002 0.012 1.2

J 179 0.15 E .012 0.12 0.013 0.021 3.2

J 181 0.15 0.096 <.04 <.002 E .004 1.4

J 1027 E .09 0.040 <.04 <.002 <.006 <1.0

J 1059 1.8 1.10 <.04 <.002 0.008 2.6

L 491 0.81 0.777 <.04 <.002 0.015 1.1

OE 1991 <.10 E .011 0.16 <.002 0.010 <1.0

OW 918 0.21 0.195 <.04 <.002 E .005 2.1

OW 1052 0.52 0.484 <.04 <.002 0.010 1.1

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number 

assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.
Tables A5–A6 27

Table A6. Concentrations of trace elements and radon-222 in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. μg/L, micrograms per liter; (01105), USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; <, less than; E, 

estimated value—constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

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

HE 1367 <4 <0.1 <0.60 1.6 <0.04 3.4 <0.01 E 0.28

J 180 <4 <.1 <.60 45.7 <.04 18 E .01 <.40

J 1118 <6 <.4 <.20 11.5 <.02 10 <.06 <.40

L 177 <4 <.1 <.60 1.1 <.04 4.1 <.01 E .40

L 178 <6 <.4 <.20 1.5 <.02 4.6 <.06 <.40

L 179 9 <.4 1.0 5.0 <.02 6.0 <.06 <.40

L 386 <4 <.1 <.60 19.8 <.04 19 <.01 <.40

OW 1599 <6 <.4 1.8 37.3 <.02 6.6 <.06 <.40

Bedrock wells

HE 628 E 3 <.1 <.60 <.6 <.04 3.9 <.01 2.2

HE 1341 <4 <.1 <.60 E .6 <.04 4.4 <.01 0.40

J 179 11 E .1 <.60 109 <.04 40 <.01 <.40

J 181 <4 <.1 <.60 127 <.04 150 <.01 <.40

J 1027 <4 <.1 E .36 59.8 E .03 34 <.01 <.40

J 1059 115 <.1 <.60 250 <.04 332 <.01 <.40

L 491 16 <.1 <.60 39.1 <.04 600 0.01 <.40

OE 1991 8 <.4 2.1 49.4 <.02 33 <.06 <.40

OW 918 6 <.1 4.8 142 <.04 60 <.01 <.40

OW 1052 234 <.1 0.84 153 <.04 628 <.01 E .39
28 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A6. Concentrations of trace elements and radon-222 in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario basin, 

New York, 2008.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. μg/L, micrograms per liter; (01105), USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; <, less than; E, 

estimated value—constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

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

HE 1367 <0.04 2.9 <8 46 1.42 1.9 0.8 2.0

J 180 E .02 2.6 <8 E 3 0.57 1.0 <.4 <.8

J 1118 <.10 <4.0 17 17 0.29 0.8 0.3 E .3

L 177 0.06 27.0 <8 7 0.09 0.8 <.4 <.8

L 178 <.10 4.0 <4 <14 0.56 0.7 <.2 <.4

L 179 E .07 <4.0 902 1,580 5.15 E .5 1,480 1,160

L 386 <.04 9.6 <8 <6 0.55 2.4 <.4 <.8

OW 1599 E .08 <4.0 830 976 1.46 2.1 287 287

Bedrock wells

HE 628 <.04 2.0 <8 42 0.13 2.1 <.4 0.9

HE 1341 <.04 2.8 E 6 17 0.20 3.1 0.6 1.4

J 179 0.18 3.0 24 80 0.56 6.3 11.5 19.9

J 181 <.04 12.5 <8 E 5 E .03 30.2 2.1 2.0

J 1027 0.60 <1.2 788 817 0.20 6.1 24.6 27.1

J 1059 E .03 8.7 <8 171 1.27 294 18.9 29.5

L 491 <.04 <1.2 E 5 74 E .04 311 2.1 2.7

OE 1991 <.10 <4.0 8 E 8 0.40 14.0 0.2 <.4

OW 918 0.05 E 1.2 808 955 0.33 29.6 68.9 79.7

OW 1052 0.17 8.6 E 7 938 0.31 127 19.9 23.0
Table A6 29

Table A6. Concentrations of trace elements and radon-222 in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008.—Continued

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. μg/L, micrograms per liter; (01105), USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; <, less than; E, 

estimated value—constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

Well number1

Molybdenum,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(01062)

Nickel,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(01067)

Selenium,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(01147)

Strontium,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(01082)

Thallium,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(01059)

Radon-222,

unfiltered,

picocuries

per liter

(pCi/L)

(82303)

Uranium,

(natural),

unfiltered,

μg/L

(28011)

Zinc,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(01092)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 0.3 <0.12 <0.08 35.0 <0.08 1,290 0.142 6.2

J 180 E .1 0.34 E .08 169 <.08 420 0.231 E 1.7

J 1118 E .1 1.3 E .07 54.0 <.12 550 0.033 7.4

L 177 0.1 E .08 <.08 21.6 <.08 630 0.062 <2.0

L 178 0.1 E .15 <.12 38.5 <.12 580 0.189 <2.0

L 179 0.1 0.46 <.12 24.7 <.12 410 <.020 2.8

L 386 E .1 0.33 <.08 152 <.08 420 0.172 8.7

OW 1599 0.2 0.28 <.12 49.0 <.12 610 0.120 75.9

Bedrock wells

HE 628 2.2 0.21 0.14 22.2 <.08 3,150 0.837 E 1.5

HE 1341 1.4 0.29 E .05 22.4 <.08 1,330 0.378 E 1.6

J 179 0.5 1.9 0.09 805 E .04 62 0.437 3.3

J 181 0.8 1.0 0.13 2,370 <.08 66 <.020 <2.0

J 1027 0.6 0.83 <.08 5,070 <.08 620 0.263 3.1

J 1059 M 0.37 <.08 859 <.08 83 0.027 3.3

L 491 0.1 0.23 <.08 123 <.08 75 <.020 <2.0

OE 1991 1.9 0.26 <.12 1,110 <.12 1,120 1.35 6.1

OW 918 0.8 0.45 <.08 1,550 <.08 450 1.25 3.7

OW 1052 0.4 0.43 <.08 487 <.08 83 0.039 7.2

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number assigned by 

U.S. Geological Survey.
30 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A7. Concentrations of pesticides detected in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, 

New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, less than; (04040), USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code; 

CIAT, 2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine; OIET, 2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-ethylamino-s-triazine; ESA, ethanesulfanic acid; E, estimated 

value—constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery]

Well number1

CIAT,

filtered,

μg/L

(04040)

cis-Permethrin,

filtered,

ug/L

(82687)

Metolachlor ESA,

filtered,

μg/L

(61043)

Metolachlor OA,

filtered,

μg/L

(61044)

Prometon

filtered,

μg/L

(04037)

Caffeine

filtered

ug/L

(50305)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 <0 .014 < 0.010 <0.02 <0.02 <0 .01 <0 .060

J 180 E .003 <.010 0.03 0.02 <.01 <.060

J 1118 E .003 <.014 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.080

L 177 E .002 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

L 178 <.014 <.014 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.080

L 179 <.014 <.014 <.02 <.02 <.01 E .010

L 386 <.014 E .001 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

OW 1599 <.014 <.014 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.080

Bedrock wells

HE 628 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

HE 1341 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

J 179 E .003 <.010 <.02 <.02 0.01 <.060

J 181 <.014 <.010 0.03 <.02 <.01 <.060

J 1027 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

J 1059 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

L 491 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

OE 1991 <.014 <.014 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.080

OW 918 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

OW 1052 <.014 <.010 <.02 <.02 <.01 <.060

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number assigned by 

U.S. Geological Survey.
Table A7–A8 31

Table A8. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in groundwater samples from Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. μg/L, micrograms per liter; m + p, meta plus para; <, less than; (34506), USGS National Water Information System 

parameter code; E, estimated value—constituent was detected in the sample but with low or inconsistent recovery.]

Well number1

Bromodichloromethane,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(32101)

Trichloromethane,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(32106)

Tetrachloromethane,

unfiltered,

ug/L

(32102)

Benzene

unfiltered,

μg/L

(34030)

Toluene,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(34010)

m + p

Xylene,

unfiltered,

μg/L

(85795)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 <0.1 < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.2

J 180 <.1 0.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

J 1118 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.1 <.2

L 177 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

L 178 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

L 179 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.1 <.2

L 386 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

OW 1599 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

Bedrock wells

HE 628 <.1 0.3 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

HE 1341 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

J 179 <.1 0.6 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

J 181 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

J 1027 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

J 1059 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 E .2

L 491 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.1 <.2

OE 1991 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 <.1 <.2

OW 918 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.1 <.2

OW 1052 <.1 <.1 <.2 <.1 0.2 <.2

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local well-identification number assigned by 

U.S. Geological Survey.
32 Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin of New York, 2008

Table A9. Concentrations of bacteria in unfiltered groundwater samples from Eastern Lake 

Ontario Basin, New York, 2008.

[Well locations are shown in figure 1. mL, milliliter; <, less than; CFU, colony-forming unit; (61213), National 

Water Information System (NWIS) parameter code. Bold values exceed one or more drinking-water standard]

Well number1

Total coliform

colonies 

per 100 mL

(61213)

Fecal coliform

colonies 

per 100 mL

(61215)

Escherichia coli,

colonies 

per 100 mL

(31691)

Heterotrophic 

plate count,

CFUs per mL

(31692)

Sand and gravel wells

HE 1367 <1 <1 <1 <1

J 180 <1 <1 <1 12

J 1118 <1 <1 <1 8

L 177 <1 <1 <1 2

L 178 <1 <1 <1 <1

L 179 <1 <1 <1 260

L 386 <1 <1 <1 6

OW 1599 1 <1 <1 6

Bedrock wells

HE 628 2 <1 <1 6

HE 1341 1 <1 <1 140

J 179 <1 <1 <1 3

J 181 <1 <1 <1 1

J 1027 <1 <1 <1 21

J 1059 <1 <1 <1 30

L 491 <1 <1 <1 740

OE 1991 <1 <1 <1 <1

OW 918 <1 <1 <1 1

OW 1052 <1 <1 <1 130

1

 Prefix denotes county: HE, Herkimer; J, Jefferson; L, Lewis; OE, Oneida; OW, Oswego; number is local 

well-identification number assigned by U.S. Geological Survey.
Prepared by the Pembroke Publishing Service Center.

For additional information write to:

New York Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

30 Brown Rd.

Ithaca, NY 14850

Information requests:

(518) 285-5602

or visit our Web site at:

http://ny.water.usgs.gov
Risen and Reddy—Groundwater Quality in the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, New York, 2008—Open-File Report 2011–1074