USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Marilee A. Horn

Publications and source records attributed to Marilee A. Horn.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

Incorporation of water-use summaries into the StreamStats web application for Maryland

Approximately 25,000 new households and thousands of new jobs will be established in an area that extends from southwest to northeast of Baltimore, Maryland, as a result of the Federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, with consequent new demands on the water resources of the area. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of the Environment, has extended the area of implementation and added functionality to an existing map-based Web application named StreamStats to provide an improved tool for planning and managing the water resources in the BRAC-affected areas. StreamStats previously was implemented for only a small area surrounding Baltimore, Maryland, and it was extended to cover all BRAC-affected areas. StreamStats could provide previously published streamflow statistics, such as the 1-percent probability flood and the 7-day, 10-year low flow, for U.S. Geological Survey data-collection stations and estimates of streamflow statistics for any user-selected point on a stream within the implemented area. The application was modified for this study to also provide summaries of water withdrawals and discharges upstream from any user-selected point on a stream. This new functionality was made possible by creating a Web service that accepts a drainage-basin delineation from StreamStats, overlays it on a spatial layer of water withdrawal and discharge points, extracts the water-use data for the identified points, and sends it back to StreamStats, where it is summarized for the user. The underlying water-use data were extracted from the U.S. Geological Survey's Site-Specific Water-Use Database System (SWUDS) and placed into a Microsoft Access database that was created for this study for easy linkage to the Web service and StreamStats. This linkage of StreamStats with water-use information from SWUDS should enable Maryland regulators and planners to make more informed decisions on the use of water resources in the BRAC area, and the technology should be transferrable to other geographic areas.

Scientific Investigations Report

Estimated water withdrawals and return flows in Vermont in 2005 and 2020

In 2005, about 12 percent of total water withdrawals (440 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)) in Vermont were from groundwater sources (51 Mgal/d), and about 88 percent were from surface-water sources (389 Mgal/d). Of total water withdrawals, about 78 percent were used for cooling at a power plant, 9 percent were withdrawn by public suppliers, about 5 percent were withdrawn for domestic use, about 3 percent were withdrawn for use at fish hatcheries, and the remaining 5 percent were divided among commercial/industrial, irrigation, livestock, and snowmaking uses. About 49 percent of the population of Vermont was supplied with drinking water by a public supplier, and 51 percent was self supplied. Some of the Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs) that had large self-supplied populations were located near the major cities of St. Albans, Burlington, Montpelier, Barre, and Rutland, where the cities themselves were served largely by public supply, but the surrounding areas were not. Most MCDs where withdrawals by community water systems totaled more than 1 Mgal/d used predominantly surface water, and those where withdrawals by community water systems totaled 1 Mgal/d or less used predominantly groundwater. Withdrawals of groundwater greater than 1 Mgal/d were made in Middlebury, Bethel, Hartford, Springfield, and Bennington, and withdrawals of surface water greater than 2 Mgal/d were made in Grand Isle, Burlington, South Burlington, Mendon, Brattleboro, and Vernon. Increases in groundwater withdrawals greater than 0.1 Mgal/d are projected for 2020 for Fairfax, Hardwick, Middlebury, Sharon, Proctor, Springfield, and Manchester. The largest projected increases in surface-water withdrawals from 2005 to 2020 are located along the center axis of the Green Mountains in the ski-area towns of Stowe, Warren, Mendon, Killington, and Wilmington. In 2005, withdrawals were at least 1 Mgal/d greater than return flows in South Burlington, Waterford, Orange, Mendon, Woodford, and Vernon. Many of these MCDs had small populations themselves but provided water to community water systems in neighboring towns or cities. Wilmington probably will be added to this list by 2020 because of proposed new withdrawals for snowmaking in Dover. About 15 percent of MCDs had greater return flows than withdrawals; possible reasons are water importation, larger service areas for municipal sewer than for municipal water resulting in underestimation of withdrawals, leakage into sewer pipes, faulty assumptions in assigning coefficients, or other limitations of the study methods. To store and facilitate retrieval of water-use estimates and data for 2005 and projections for 2020, a water-use database for Vermont was designed and populated. Data include withdrawals and return flows from and to groundwater and surface water for all individual facilities and entities that are in Vermont drinking water, discharge permit, or other State water-use databases, along with estimates for many other facilities. Also included are estimates for aggregated domestic and livestock withdrawals and return flows by census block. Retrievals from the database and summaries presented in this report can be used to help identify areas where projected growth in Vermont from 2005 to 2020 might affect groundwater availability.

Scientific Investigations Report

Simulation of groundwater flow to assess future withdrawals associated with Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland

Increased groundwater withdrawals from confined aquifers in the Maryland Coastal Plain to supply anticipated growth at Fort George G. Meade (Fort Meade) and surrounding areas resulting from the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure Program may have adverse effects in the outcrop or near-outcrop areas. Specifically, increased pumping from the Potomac Group aquifers (principally the Patuxent aquifer) could potentially reduce base flow in small streams below rates necessary for healthy biological functioning. Additionally, water levels may be lowered near, or possibly below, the top of the aquifer within the confined-unconfined transition zone near the outcrop area. A three-dimensional groundwater flow model was created to incorporate and analyze data on water withdrawals, streamflow, and hydraulic head in the region. The model is based on an earlier model developed to assess the effects of future withdrawals from well fields in Anne Arundel County, Maryland and surrounding areas, and includes some of the same features, including model extent, boundary conditions, and vertical discretization (layering). The resolution (horizontal grid discretization) of the earlier model limited its ability to simulate the effects of withdrawals on the outcrop and near-outcrop areas. The model developed for this study included a block-shaped higher-resolution local grid, referred to as the child model, centered on Fort Meade, which was coupled to the coarser-grid parent model using the shared node Local Grid Refinement capability of MODFLOW-LGR. A more detailed stream network was incorporated into the child model. In addition, for part of the transient simulation period, stress periods were reduced in length from 1 year to 3 months, to allow for simulation of the effects of seasonally varying withdrawals and recharge on the groundwater-flow system and simulated streamflow. This required revision of the database on withdrawals and estimation of seasonal variations in recharge represented in the earlier model. The calibrated model provides a tool for future forecasts of changes in the system under different management scenarios, and for simulating potential effects of withdrawals at Fort Meade and the surrounding area on water levels in the near-outcrop area and base flow in the outcrop area. Model error was assessed by comparing observed and simulated water levels from 62 wells (55 in the parent model and 7 in the child model). The root-mean-square error values for the parent and child model were 8.72 and 11.91 feet, respectively. Root-mean-square error values for the 55 parent model observation wells range from 0.95 to 30.31 feet; the range for the 7 child model observation wells is 5.00 to 24.17 feet. Many of the wells with higher root-mean-square error values occur at the perimeter of the child model and near large pumping centers, as well as updip in the confined aquifers. Root-mean-square error values decrease downdip and away from the large pumping centers. Both the parent and child models are sensitive to increasing withdrawal rates. The parent model is more sensitive than the child model to decreasing transmissivity of layers 3, 4, 5, and 6. The parent model is relatively insensitive to riverbed vertical conductance, however, the child model does exhibit some sensitivity to decreasing riverbed conductance. The overall water budget for the model included sources and sinks of water including recharge, surface-water bodies and rivers and streams, general-head boundaries, and withdrawals from permitted wells. Withdrawal from wells in 2005 was estimated to be equivalent to 8.5 percent of the total recharge rate.

Scientific Investigations Report

Methods for Estimating Withdrawal and Return Flow by Census Block for 2005 and 2020 for New Hampshire

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, estimated the amount of water demand, consumptive use, withdrawal, and return flow for each U.S. Census block in New Hampshire for the years 2005 (current) and 2020. Estimates of domestic, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and other nondomestic water use were derived through the use and innovative integration of several State and Federal databases, and by use of previously developed techniques. The New Hampshire Water Demand database was created as part of this study to store and integrate State of New Hampshire data central to the project. Within the New Hampshire Water Demand database, a lookup table was created to link the State databases and identify water users common to more than one database. The lookup table also allowed identification of withdrawal and return-flow locations of registered and unregistered commercial, industrial, agricultural, and other nondomestic users. Geographic information system data from the State were used in combination with U.S. Census Bureau spatial data to locate and quantify withdrawals and return flow for domestic users in each census block. Analyzing and processing the most recently available data resulted in census-block estimations of 2005 water use. Applying population projections developed by the State to the data sets enabled projection of water use for the year 2020. The results for each census block are stored in the New Hampshire Water Demand database and may be aggregated to larger political areas or watersheds to assess relative hydrologic stress on the basis of current and potential water availability.

Open-File Report

Methods for and estimates of 2003 and projected water use in the Seacoast Region, Southeastern New Hampshire

New methods were developed to estimate water use in 2003 and future water demand in 2017 and 2025 in the Seacoast region in southeastern New Hampshire, which has experienced a 37-percent population increase during 1980 to 2000. Water-use activities for which estimates were developed include water withdrawal, delivery, demand, consumptive use, release, return flow, and transfer by registered and aggregated unregistered (less than 20,000 gallons per day (gal/d)) users at the census-block and town scales. Estimates of water use rely on understanding what influences water demand and its associated consumptive use, because changes in demand and consumptive use affect withdrawal and return flow. Domestic water demand was estimated using a per capita water demand model that related metered deliveries to domestic users with census block and block-group data. The model was used to predict annual, summer, and winter per capita water-demand coefficients for each census block. Significant predictors of domestic water demand include population per housing unit, median value of owner-occupied single family homes, median year of housing construction (with 1900 as the base value), population density, housing unit density, and proportion of housing units that are in urban areas. Mean annual domestic per capita water-demand coefficient in the Seacoast region was 75 gal/d; the coefficient increased to 91 gal/d during the summer and decreased to 65 gal/d during the winter. Domestic consumptive use was estimated as the difference between annual and winter domestic water demand. Estimates of commercial and industrial water demand were based on coefficients derived from reported use and metered deliveries. Projections of water demand in 2017 and 2025 were determined by using the housing and employee projections for those years developed through a Transportation Demand Model and applying current domestic and non-domestic coefficients. Water demand in 2003 was estimated as 25.8 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), 35 percent of which was during the summer months of June, July, and August. Domestic water demand was 18.6 Mgal/d (72 percent), commercial water demand was 3.7 Mgal/d (14 percent), industrial water demand was 2.9 Mgal/d (11 percent), irrigation water demand was 0.3 Mgal/d (1 percent), and mining and aquaculture water demand was 0.2 Mgal/d (1 percent). Domestic consumptive use for the Seacoast region was 16 percent of domestic water demand, which translates to a loss of 3 Mgal/d over the entire Seacoast region. In 2003, water withdrawal was 771.2 Mgal/d, of which 742.2 Mgal/d was instream use for hydroelectric power generation and thermoelectric power cooling. The remaining 29.0 Mgal/d was withdrawn by community water systems (22.6 Mgal/d; 72 percent), domestic users (6.4 Mgal/d; 21 percent), commercial users (1.0 Mgal/d; 3 percent), industrial users (1.0 Mgal/d; 3 percent), irrigation (0.2 Mgal/d; 1 percent) and other users (less than 0.1 Mgal/d). Return flow for 2003 was 772.2 Mgal/d, of which 742.0 Mgal/d was returned following use for hydroelectric power generation and thermoelectric plant cooling. The remaining 30.2 Mgal/d was returned by community wastewater systems (20.2 Mgal/d; 68 percent), domestic users (7.8 Mgal/d; 26 percent), commercial users (1.2 Mgal/d; 3 percent), industrial users (0.8 Mgal/d; 3 percent), and other users (0.1 Mgal/d). Domestic water demand is projected to increase by 54 percent to 28.7 Mgal/d from 2003 to 2025 based on projection of future population growth. Non-domestic (commercial, industrial, irrigation, and mining) water demand is projected to increase by 66 percent to 11.8 Mgal/d from 2003 to 2025.

Scientific Investigations Report

User's Manual for the New England Water-Use Data System (NEWUDS)

Water is used in a variety of ways that need to be understood for effective management of water resources. Water-use activities need to be categorized and included in a database management system to understand current water uses and to provide information to water-resource management policy decisionmakers. The New England Water-Use Data System (NEWUDS) is a complex database developed to store water-use information that allows water to be tracked from a point of water-use activity (called a 'Site'), such as withdrawal from a resource (reservoir or aquifer), to a second Site, such as distribution to a user (business or irrigator). NEWUDS conceptual model consists of 10 core entities: system, owner, address, location, site, data source, resource, conveyance, transaction/rate, and alias, with tables available to store user-defined details. Three components--site (with both a From Site and a To Site), a conveyance that connects them, and a transaction/rate associated with the movement of water over a specific time interval form the core of the basic NEWUDS network model. The most important step in correctly translating real-world water-use activities into a storable format in NEWUDS depends on choosing the appropriate sites and linking them correctly in a network to model the flow of water from the initial From Site to the final To Site. Ten water-use networks representing real-world activities are described--three withdrawal networks, three return networks, two user networks, two complex community-system networks. Ten case studies of water use, one for each network, also are included in this manual to illustrate how to compile, store, and retrieve the appropriate data. The sequence of data entry into tables is critical because there are many foreign keys. The recommended core entity sequence is (1) system, (2) owner, (3) address, (4) location, (5) site, (6) data source, (7) resource, (8) conveyance, (9) transaction, and (10) rate; with (11) alias and (12) user-defined detail subject areas populated as needed. After each step in data entry, quality-assurance queries should be run to ensure the data are correctly entered so that it can be retrieved accurately. The point of data storage is retrieval. Several retrieval queries that focus on retrieving only relevant data to specific questions are presented in this manual as examples for the NEWUDS user.

Open-File Report

A Retrospective Analysis on the Occurrence of Arsenic in Ground-Water Resources of the United States and Limitations in Drinking-Water-Supply Characterizations

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to review current drinking-water standards for arsenic, propose a maximum contaminant level for arsenic by January 1, 2000, and issue a final regulation by January, 2001. Quantification of the national occurrence of targeted ranges in arsenic concentration in ground water used for public drinking-water supplies is an important component of USEPA's regulatory process. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) were used in a retrospective analysis of arsenic in the ground-water resources of the United States. The analysis augments other existing sources of data on the occurrence of arsenic collected in ground water at public water-supply systems.The USGS, through its District offices and national programs, has been compiling data for many years on arsenic concentrations collected from wells used for public water supply, research, agriculture, industry, and domestic water supply throughout the United States. These data have been collected for a variety of purposes ranging from simple descriptions of the occurrence of arsenic in local or regional ground-water resources to detailed studies on arsenic geochemistry associated with contamination sites. A total of 18,864 sample locations were selected from the USGS NWIS data base regardless of well type, of which 2,262 were taken from public water-supply sources. Samples with non-potable water (dissolved-solids concentration greater than 2,000 milligrams per liter and water temperature greater than 50o Celsius) were not selected for the retrospective analysis and other criteria for selection included the amount and type of ancillary data available for each sample. The 1,528 counties with sufficient data included 76 percent of all large public water-supply systems (serving more than 10,000 people) and 61 percent of all small public water-supply systems (serving more than 1,000 and less than 10,000 people) in the United States. The arsenic data were summarized for the selected counties by associating the arsenic concentrations measured in the ground-water resource with the numbers and sizes of public water-supply systems using ground water in those counties. Targeted arsenic concentrations of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 ug/L were exceeded in the ground-water resource associated with 36, 25, 14, 8, 3, and 1 percent respectively of all public water-supply systems accounted for in the analysis.Contributions to uncertainty such as changes in sampling methods and changes in laboratory reporting appear to be less important to the national occurrence estimates than other factors such as temporal variability in arsenic concentrations at a given well, the types of wells sampled, and density and types of sampling locations. In addition, no attempt was made to quantify arsenic concentrations in relation to depth within aquifers. With these qualifications, the USGS data represent the ground-water resource in general and are not restricted to wells currently used for public drinking-water sources. In this way, the broad spatial extent, large number of water samples, and low detection limits used for the USGS data provide a unique source of information to determine where targeted concentrations of arsenic are likely to occur in the ground-water resources within much of the United States.These results indicate USGS data can be effectively used to augment national estimates of arsenic occurrence in the nation's ground-water resources if limitations are recognized. Existing estimates of the occurrence of arsenic in ground water that are used as a source of drinking water can be supplemented with the USGS arsenic concentration data when associated with the public water-supply data base. One such supplementary application is the additional insight gained by establishing relations between arsenic concentration data in the ground-water resource and small public wat

Water-Resources Investigations Report

Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Segment 11, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Segment 11 consists of the States of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, West Virginia, and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia. All but West Virginia border on the Atlantic Ocean or tidewater. Pennsylvania also borders on Lake Erie. Small parts of northwestern and north-central Pennsylvania drain to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario; the rest of the segment drains either to the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. Major rivers include the Hudson, the Delaware, the Susquehanna, the Potomac, the Rappahannock, the James, the Chowan, the Neuse, the Tar, the Cape Fear, and the Yadkin-Peedee, all of which drain into the Atlantic Ocean, and the Ohio and its tributaries, which drain to the Gulf of Mexico. Although rivers are important sources of water supply for many cities, such as Trenton, N.J.; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pa.; Baltimore, Md.; Washington, D.C.; Richmond, Va.; and Raleigh, N.C., one-fourth of the population, particularly the people who live on the Coastal Plain, depends on ground water for supply. Such cities as Camden, N.J.; Dover, Del.; Salisbury and Annapolis, Md.; Parkersburg and Weirton, W.Va.; Norfolk, Va.; and New Bern and Kinston, N.C., use ground water as a source of public supply. All the water in Segment 11 originates as precipitation. Average annual precipitation ranges from less than 36 inches in parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia to more than 80 inches in parts of southwestern North Carolina (fig. 1). In general, precipitation is greatest in mountainous areas (because water tends to condense from moisture-laden air masses as the air passes over the higher altitudes) and near the coast, where water vapor that has been evaporated from the ocean is picked up by onshore winds and falls as precipitation when it reaches the shoreline. Some of the precipitation returns to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration (evaporation plus transpiration by plants), but much of it either flows overland into streams as direct runoff or enters streams as base flow (discharge from one or more aquifers). The distribution of average annual runoff (fig. 2) is similar to the distribution of precipitation; that is, runoff is generally greatest where precipitation is greatest. Runoff rates range from more than 50 inches per year in parts of western North Carolina to less than 12 inches in parts of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Parts of the seven following physiographic provinces are in Segment 11: the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, the Blue Ridge, the New England, the Valley and Ridge, the Appalachian Plateaus, and the Central Lowland. The provinces generally trend northeastward (fig. 3). The northeastern terminus of the Blue Ridge Province is in south-central Pennsylvania, and the southwestern part of the New England Province, the Reading Prong, ends in east-central Pennsylvania. The topography, lithology, and water-bearing characteristics of the rocks that underlie the Blue Ridge Province and the Reading Prong are similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this study, the hydrology of the Reading Prong is discussed with that of the Blue Ridge Province. The Coastal Plain Province is a lowland that borders the Atlantic Ocean. The Coastal Plain is as much as 140 miles wide in North Carolina but narrows northeastward to New Jersey where it terminates in Segment 11 at the south shore of Raritan Bay. Although it is generally a flat, seaward-sloping lowland, this province has areas of moderately steep local relief, and its surface locally reaches altitudes of 350 feet in the southwestern part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. The Coastal Plain mostly is underlain by semiconsolidated to unconsolidated sediments that consist of silt, clay, and sand, with some gravel and lignite. Some consolidated beds of limestone and sandstone are present. The Coastal Plain sediments range in age from Jurassic to Holocene and dip gently toward the ocean. The boundary between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Provinces is called the Fall Line (fig. 3) because falls and rapids commonly form where streams cross the contact between the consolidated rocks of the Piedmont (fig. 4) and the soft, semiconsolidated to unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain. The increase in stream gradient at the Fall Line provided favorable locations for mills and other installations that harnessed water power during the early years of the Industrial Revolution, and on most major rivers, the Fall Line coincides with the head of navigation. The Piedmont Province is an area of varied topography that ranges from lowlands to peaks and ridges of moderate altitude and relief. The metamorphic and igneous rocks of this province range in age from Precambrian to Paleozoic and have been sheared, fractured, and folded. Included in this province, however, are sedimentary basins that formed along rifts in the Earth's crust and contain shale, sandstone, and conglomerate of early Mesozoic age, interbedded locally with basaltic lava flows and minor coal beds. The sedimentary rocks and basalt flows are intruded in places by diabase dikes and sills. The mountain belt of the Blue Ridge Province forms the northwestern margin of the Piedmont in most of Segment 11. This belt consists mostly of igneous and high-rank metamorphic rocks but also includes low-rank metamorphic rocks of late Precambrian age and small areas of sedimentary rocks of Early Cambrian age along its western margin. In this report, the Reading Prong of the New England Province, which is an upland that extends from east of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania northeastward into New Jersey (fig. 3), is treated as part of the Blue Ridge Province. Part of the Reading Prong in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and a small part of the Piedmont Province in northeastern New Jersey have been glaciated. Glacial deposits completely or partly fill some of the valleys, and the eroding action of the glacial ice removed some of the rock from the ridges. Thus, the glaciated parts of the province have a smoother topography and less relief than other parts. The Valley and Ridge Province is characterized by layered sedimentary rock that has been complexly folded and locally thrust faulted. As the result of repeated cycles of uplift and erosion, resistant layers of well-cemented sandstone and conglomerate form elongate mountain ridges and less resistant, easily eroded layers of limestone, dolomite, and shale form valleys. The rocks of the province range in age from Cambrian to Pennsylvanian. Parts of this province from central Pennsylvania into New Jersey have been glaciated, and glacial deposits fill or partially fill some of the valleys. The Appalachian Plateaus Province is underlain by rocks that are continuous with those of the Valley and Ridge Province, but in the Appalachian Plateaus the layered rocks are nearly flat-lying or gently tilted and warped, rather than being intensively folded and faulted. The boundary between the two provinces is a prominent southeast-facing scarp called the Allegheny Front in most of the northern part of Segment 11 (fig_ 5) and the Cumberland Escarpment in the southern part. The scarp faces the Valley and Ridge Province, and throughout most of the segment, the eastern edge of the Appalachian Plateaus Province is higher than the ridges in the Valley and Ridge. Like parts of the Reading Prong and the Valley and Ridge Province, the northern part of the Appalachian Plateaus Province in Pennsylvania has been glaciated. In the glaciated section, the surface is mantled by glacial drift, and the valleys are partly filled with glacial deposits. The northwestern corner of Segment 11 contains a small part of the Central Lowland Province. This flat lowland is underlain by gently dipping sedimentary rocks, some of which are the same geologic formations as those of the Appalachian Plateaus Province. The two provinces are separated by a northwest- facing scarp. Because of the small area of the Central Lowland Province within the segment and the similarity of aquifer properties with those of the glaciated part of the Appalachian Plateaus Province, the two provinces are discussed together in this report.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pe