Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01. Duplicates (such as well records for permit modifications) were removed from the completed groundwater wells dataset for Mesa County.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: -16 Size: 7 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Features in this dataset represent segments of public highways that are maintained by and under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. These highways consist of Interstates, US Highways, and State Highways. Features are represented by polyline (linear) geographic shapes.
Color: [0, 92, 230, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 10 YOffset: -4 Size: 8 Font Family: Times New Roman Font Style: italic Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Data was originally downloaded from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Service Center Agencies website, was clipped to Mesa County and a color scheme created.
Copyright Text: Data was downloaded from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Service Center Agencies website.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. CGS staff for the water well locations included Lesley A. Sebol, Erin P. Johnson, and Katheryne H. McGee.
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Name: Mesaverde Group Aquifer intersecting alluvium
Display Field: FMT
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: Geologic maps were digitized from various USGS reports, professional papers, investigations, and field studies. Scans of the paper maps were georeferenced into UTM, NAD83, zones 12 or 13. Features were initially digitized and attributed in ArcMap 10.3. They were subsequently modified in ArcMap 10.5 for OF-17-01.
Copyright Text: Digital Data Service digitized USGS geologic maps for the CGS. These were then modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS or Colorado Mesa University geologic map GIS files were modified by the CGS for OF-17-01, as needed. CGS Staff included Katheryne H. McGee and Lesley A. Sebol.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.
Description: There were 2,433 water wells (permitted as completed in the DWR database) in Mesa County as of November 14, 2016. Each well was assigned to a hydrogeologic unit. Due to various sources of uncertainty, hydrogeologic unit designations were assigned a confidence level value of 1, 2, 3, or 4 with 4 representing the least confidence, based on the factors of uncertainty. A value of 4 was only used if there was very little to no data available for the given well.A Mesa County groundwater quality database was compiled from publically available databases or reports. The primary data source was the Water Quality Portal (WQP) from the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. Additional data sources included the Colorado Department of Agriculture website and five United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports having data in Mesa County not found within the WQP. Within these USGS reports, the additional data was sourced from the City of Grand Junction, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and the USGS. These included data from as far back as 1946.A total of 365 sample sites had water quality data through 2017. Maximum detected concentrations were used for locations sampled more than once. Water quality in sampled Mesa County wells is variable and dependent on local geology, geography, and seasonal influences. It is emphasized that the existing database spans a time period of multiple decades and the data do not represent a synoptic view of water quality conditions. The water quality database was evaluated for water type in each of the hydrogeologic units. Cations (sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) and anions (chloride, bicarbonate, carbonate, and sulfate) data were used to generate Stiff diagrams and/or pie charts. The pie charts were generated using concentrations in mg/L and, because of use of maximum values and other data variability, are not necessarily balanced. All of the pie charts were scaled in size relative to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, with larger pies having higher measured TDS. Water quality was evaluated against EPA/Colorado drinking water standards.
Copyright Text: Water well information was derived primarily from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) database. Groundwater quality data in Mesa County was derived primarily from the Water Quality Portal (WQP) in the National Water Quality Monitoring Council website. CGS staff for the water well location and/or water quality components included Lesley A. Sebol, Katheryne H. McGee, and Erin P. Johnson.