The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has been studying the water resources in the vicinity of Fort Huachuca, Arizona. As a part of this study, they contracted an Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) survey of the region, which was flown in 1997. During the spring semester of 2002, the University of Arizona Geophysics Field Camp class conducted Transient Electromagnetic (TEM) surveys at five locations near AEM flight lines in order to provide an independent test of the resistivity structure. We used 100 X 100 m transmitting loops. A central induction loop array was employed where the transient decay voltage after transmitter turn off was recorded in the center of the transmitter loop. The TEM data were inverted using a smooth modeling program from Zonge Engineering. The resulting apparent resistivity cross sections, in general, showed a resisitivity structure that was similar to the AEM cross sections down to the depth of the investigation of the TEM survey (approximately 200 m). The surface layers (zero to 50 meters) showed high resistivity (30 to 300 ohm-m) and deeper layers showed lower resistivities (10- 30 ohm meters). We also recorded low-induction number (LIN) EM surveys over a sink hole feature in this area. There was a pronounced conductivity high coincident with the sinkhole. Background conductivity readings were typically 10-15 mS/m and over the sinkhole feature the conductivity readings were typically 20-25 mS/m.

Four different geophysical methods were used near Chino Valley, Arizona in order to map a suspected andesite intrusive, identified as plug 15, which had originally been found using aeromagnetic data already acquired over the area. Magnetic, transient electromagnetic, seismic, and gravity measurements were collected between 3/1/2003-3/2/2003 and 3/22/2003-3/23/2003. The surveys were located near the center of section 35, township 17 North, Range 2 West, just north of Chino Valley, AZ. The magnetic and TEM surveys provided the best indication of the location and depth of the plug. The north-south spatial extent of the plug was estimated to be approximately 600 meters. The depth to the top of the plug was found from the TEM survey to be approximately 300 meters at the center of the survey. The seismic survey did not reach deep enough to find the andesite anomaly and the gravity survey did not appear to be affected by the plug. Magnetic, TEM, and seismic surveys were also performed at another site located approximately 1.25 km northeast of plug 15. The seismic survey did not reach deep enough and the magnetic survey was too short to provide a depth interpretation. The single TEM sounding measured a very high resistivity (approximately 900 ohm-m) at this site.

Five different geophysical methods were used near Sierra Vista, Arizona in order to determine the presence or absence of impermeable silt-clay layers in reference to a proposed water-retention system. Geophysical investigations were conducted at Woodcutters 3 and Basin Floor 1 (both approximately one kilometer long north-south and east-west transects), and School Basin (10 meter by 50 meter area where only TEM data were collected). Magnetic, VLF, seismic, EM 31 and 34, and TEM survey data were collected on February 28th and 29th and March 20th and 21st of 2004. Magnetic and VLF surveys conducted at the Woodcutters 3 and Basin Floor 1 sites had relatively flat profiles that indicated only a few single-station anomalies with little difference between the two sites. Seismic survey data produced velocities in two-layer earth models that were similar between the two sites in the upper 5 meters, again indicating little difference between the sites. The EM 31 and 34 surveys, with depths of investigation in the 3-6 meter range, measured higher ground conductivity values in the upper 10 meters at the Woodcutters 3 site. This agreed with shallow borehole data from the Woodcutters 3 and Basin Floor 1 sites. The higher ground conductivity is indicative of higher water content, which may be due to the increased percentage of clay. For the TEM surveys, conducted at all three sites and with depths of investigations in the 0-50 meter range, it was found that a low resistivity layer at 30-50 meter depth resides at the Basin Floor 1 site. This layer is deeper than the available borehole data. At both sites the borehole data do not show definitive clay layers, making it difficult to correlate the high conductivity values with clay content percentages.

VLF (Very Low Frequency), magnetic, TEM (Transient ElectroMagnetics), and Seismic were performed in Yuma, Arizona over two weekends in February and March of 2005. The targets of interest in Yuma included the depth to the shallow bedrock, the trace of the Algodones Fault, and the distribution and thickness of clay units. The VLF and magnetic surveys both proved not to be valuable for the interpretation of groundwater or bedrock depth. The Seismic surveys found a quartz monzonite horst structure at a depth of 8 meters and 250 in length and a graben at 8 meters depth and 48 meters in length. The TEM surveys were performed along Line 2 and Line 4 for Site One, Line 1 and Line 3 for Site Two, and SG1 line and SG2 line for Site Three. The TEM survey, located near the Seismic surveys, was in agreement with the findings of these Seismic surveys. At all sites, the TEM surveys were useful for determining depth to water table. At one site, the TEM survey mapped substantial near-surface clay layers.

Four geophysical surveys were conducted at the Nature Conservancy about 20 miles north of Benson, AZ, in the Upper San Pedro River Basin, in order to better understand the nature of the sub-surface features of the basin. The geophysical methods included TEM (Transient Electromagnetic), seismic, EM34 and magnetic surveys. The TEM, seismic and magnetic surveys were conducted perpendicular to the river basin while the EM34 lines followed the riverbed. The perpendicular surveys were divided into two regions, referred to as the South and North Lines. The TEM, seismic, and magnetic surveys revealed a consolidated bedrock structure at shallow depths (30-40 m) along the South Line. The feature has an east-west extension of approximately 500 meters, and is located just east of the San Pedro River. None of the perpendicular surveys were able to detect bedrock features along the North Line, implying that the depth to bedrock exceeds the maximum depth of this investigation (360 m). Both lines showed regions of high porosity, and, potentially, of saturated materials. These regions were more prevalent along the North Line, where numerous highly porous areas were detected at various depths (including one region beginning at a depth of 50 meters and extending at least to 360 m). The EM34 failed to detect any appreciable long-wavelength changes in conductivity along the riverbed, though localized point anomalies were found.

Transient Electromagnetic (TEM) surveys were conducted in the San Pedro Valley starting approximately 1 mile northeast of Benson, Arizona, and extending about 2 miles farther northeast. The survey used loop sizes of 20x20, 100x100, and 200x200 meters with the objectives of determining the depth, thickness, and lateral extent of clay deposits, and comparing ground surveys with a previously acquired airborne TEM survey. The data were processed with Zonge Engineering smooth inversion software as well as Interpex TEMIX layered-earth inversion software. The interpreted depth to near-surface clay deposits was less than 5 m on the west end near the San Pedro River, and increased to about 15 m, 1.3 km to the east. Farther east, clay deposits were only detected at depths of 100 m or more. A possible bottom to the clay was detected near 100 m depth at selected stations in the western half of the survey, which would correlate with wells in the vicinity, but it was not laterally continuous. Surveys at the remainder of the stations did not detect a lower limit to the clay deposit. The results of the airborne survey versus the ground elevation surveys show similar resistivity values.

Groundwater resources are essential to support the growing population of Benson as well as the agriculture, and wildlife throughout the Middle San Pedro Basin. A refined model of the hydrogeologic framework within the region is necessary to allow for the most efficient allocation of the area’s ground water resources by city planners and water managers in charge of future development. New data were collected by the University of Arizona’s Geophysics Field Camp to update and improve this representation. This survey utilizes Controlled Source Audio Magnetotellurics (CSAMT) to characterize previously unstudied locations in the San Pedro Basin. CSAMT data were processed and interpreted using software from Zonge Engineering and Interpex Ltd. Seven receiver stations along a five-kilometer Middle San Pedro transect were used to determine the resistivities of several basin-fill units. Results show some resistivity variability with respect to depth among the sampled regions. In the simplest representation of the data, four layers were modeled. Resistivities ranged from 15-30 ohm-m in the near-surface units. Deeper units showed resistivities of 5-10 ohm-m. These results were plotted to help identify conductive aquitard (clay) and potentially more resistive aquifer units. This clay unit could correspond to a thin unit of the St. David Formation, which has previously been identified as a confining unit between two separate basin aquifers. CSAMT data indicate that the local bedrock is deeper than 500 m.

An interdisciplinary survey consisting of four geophysical methods was conducted on the western edge of the Apache Generating Station’s property in Willcox, Arizona. The aim of the survey was to apply various methods for the detection of earth fissures and desiccation cracks. The geophysical methods used were static magnetic field measurements, frequency domain electromagnetics (FEM), ground penetrating radar (GPR), and seismic. Two grids were delineated and surveyed by each method. Grid 1 was set up at a site containing a fissure with visible surface expression over some parts of the grid, and Grid 2 was set up at a site with little visible surface expression of the fissure, but was suspected to contain a fissure in the subsurface. At another location, northwest of the Apache Generating Station, three lines were surveyed in an area of known desiccation cracks. All of the methods showed an anomaly associated with the fissure in Grid 1. Furthermore, at locations where the fissure is not visible in Grid 1, there were still strong anomalies in line with the suspected location of the fissure extending below the surface. Magnetic data from Grid 2 suggests that magnetics may not be a useful method in subsurface earth fissure detection at this site, where we believe that the fissure is only a very small crack with small aperture at depth. The electromagnetic results from Grid 2 show anomalies extending from lines 1 through 5 where there is only minimal surface expression in lines 1 and 2 and no surface expression in lines 3-5. No anomaly was seen in the northern end of Grid 2. It was found that GPR in Grid 2 did not display conclusive results in distinguishing subsurface earth fissure anomalies from other anomalies, such as roots. Seismic lines in Grid 2 show anomalies in the profiles that could indicate the presence of earth fissures; however a thin high velocity horizon may appear as a subsurface fissure, and this made interpretations more challenging. At the desiccation crack site, there is evidence of a shallow feature, which we interpret to be a dessication crack and not an earth fissure. A dirt road was present at the desiccation crack site, and it is possible that the road may have produced some of the observed anomalies due to rain-water channeling effects. The locations of fissures were confirmed by trenches excavated at the locations where anomalies were visible in the geophysical data, but where the fissures were not exposed at the surface.

In the spring semester of 2010, the University of Arizona GEOS/GEN 416 Field Studies in Geophysics class, funded by the USGS, collected data in the Upper Santa Cruz River Basin, located in southeastern Arizona, near the US-Mexico border. In this region, surface water is scarce, so the population is almost entirely dependent on ground water. To understand temporal and spatial variability of ground-water quantity and quality, it is necessary to understand the hydrogeology of the subsurface. Using time-domain electromagnetic measurements (TEM), combined with other geophysical data, it is possible to interpret characteristics of the subsurface that might otherwise go unnoticed using just well logs or where well logs are not available. The goal of this work is to develop an understanding of hydrologically significant spatial variations in litho-stratigraphic units in the basin. Using forward and inverse modeling of electromagnetic fields and comparisons with measured data collected by ground based TEM surveys, it is possible to estimate depth to bedrock and water table. Through the analysis of 9 different TEM loops varying in size from 75 to 500 meters, groundwater in the region was interpreted to range from ~20 meters to ~100 meters. Correlation of groundwater with proximity to the Santa Cruz River differs between Guevavi Basin and Highway 82 Basin. Water table depth decreases with proximity to the Santa Cruz in the Guevavi Basin, but increases with proximity in the Highway 82 Basin. Furthermore, none of the TEM loops positively identified any bedrock material, and in some areas the bedrock is determined to be greater than 850 meters depth.

Transient Electromagnetic (TEM), Controlled Source Audio Magnetotellurics (CSAMT), Gravity, and Magnetic data were collected in the Tucson Mountains during the Spring semester, 2011. The goal was to investigate the extent of a low-resistivity porous sedimentary layer and faults that may form potential traps located under the surface volcanic layers, as interpreted by Lipman 1993. The sedimentary layer under the volcanics has the potential to be used for either water resources or compressed air storage to store solar energy. The results from the TEM and CSAMT surveys broadly correlated with the thickness of the volcanic layer and throw of the faults interpreted by Lipman, 1993. The gravity modeling suggested the faults may have a larger throw than what was indicated by the other methods. Because of the fundamental uncertainty in the densities to use in the modeling, it was concluded that the gravity modeling may not give as accurate a prediction of the structure in this region. For further investigation of the deep porous sedimentary layer, we suggest that TEM and CSAMT are the most effective methods.