Estimated water use and availability in the Pawtuxet and Quinebaug River basins, Rhode Island, 1995-99

Emily C. Wild; Mark T. Nimiroski

doi:10.3133/sir20065154

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20065154

Estimated water use and availability in the Pawtuxet and Quinebaug River basins, Rhode Island, 1995-99

Emily C. Wild·Mark T. Nimiroski

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Water availability became a concern in Rhode Island during a drought in 1999, and an investigation was needed to assess demands on the hydrologic system from withdrawals during periods of little to no precipitation. The low water levels during the drought prompted the U.S. Geological Survey and the Rhode Island Water Resources Board to begin a series of studies on water use and availability in each drainage area in Rhode Island for 1995–99. The study area for this report, which includes the Pawtuxet River Basin in central Rhode Island (231.6 square miles) and the Quinebaug River Basin in western Rhode Island (60.97 square miles), was delineated as the surface-water drainage areas of these basins. During the study period from 1995 through 1999, two major water suppliers withdrew an average of 71.86 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) from the Pawtuxet River Basin; of this amount, about 35.98 Mgal/d of potable water were exported to other basins in Rhode Island. The estimated water withdrawals from minor water suppliers were 0.026 Mgal/d in the Pawtuxet River Basin and 0.003 Mgal/d in the Quinebaug River Basin. Total self-supply withdrawals were 2.173 Mgal/d in the Pawtuxet River Basin and 0.360 Mgal/d in the Quinebaug River Basin, which has no public water supply. Total water use averaged 18.07 Mgal/d in the Pawtuxet River Basin and 0.363 Mgal/d in the Quinebaug River Basin. Total return flow in the Pawtuxet River Basin was 30.64 Mgal/d, which included about 12.28 Mgal/d that were imported from other basins in Rhode Island. Total return flow was 0.283 Mgal/d in the Quinebaug River Basin. During times of little to no recharge in the form of precipitation, the surface- and ground-water flows are from storage primarily in the stratified sand and gravel deposits; water also flows through the till deposits, but at a slower rate. The ground water discharging to the streams during times of little to no recharge from precipitation is referred to as base flow. The PART program, a computerized hydrograph-separation application, was used to analyze the data collected at two selected index stream-gaging stations to determine water availability on the basis of the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles of the total base flow; the base flow for the 7-day, 10-year low-flow scenario; and the base flow for the Aquatic Base Flow scenario for both stations. The index stream-gaging stations used in the analysis were the Branch River at Forestdale, Rhode Island (period of record 1957–1999) and the Nooseneck River at Nooseneck, Rhode Island (period of record 1964–1980). A regression equation was used to estimate unknown base-flow contributions from sand and gravel deposits at the two stations. The base-flow contributions from sand and gravel deposits and till deposits at the index stations were computed for June, July, August, and September within the periods of record, and divided by the area of each type of surficial deposit at each index station. These months were selected because they define a period when there is usually an increased demand for water and little to no precipitation. The base flows at the stream-gaging station Branch River at Forestdale, Rhode Island were lowest in August at the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles (29.67, 21.48, and 13.30 Mgal/d, respectively). The base flows at the stream-gaging station Nooseneck River at Nooseneck, Rhode Island were lowest in September at the 75th percentile (3.551 Mgal/d) and lowest in August at the 50th and 25th percentiles (2.554 and 1.811 Mgal/d). The base flows per unit area for the index stations were multiplied by the areas of sand and gravel and till in the studyarea subbasins to determine the amount of available water for each scenario. The water availability in the Pawtuxet River Basin at the 50th percentile ranged from 126.5 Mgal/d in August to 204.7 Mgal/d in June, and the total gross water availability for the 7-day, 10-year low-flow scenario at the 50th percentile ranged from 112.2 Mgal/d in August to 190.4 Mgal/d in June. The Scituate Reservoir safe yield was 83 Mgal/d in all scenarios. Water availability in the Quinebaug River Basin ranged from 13.94 Mgal/d in August to 30.53 Mgal/d in June at the 50th percentile. The total gross water availability for the 7-day, 10-year low-flow scenario at the 50th percentile ranged from 14.26 Mgal/d in August to 42.69 Mgal/d in June. Because water withdrawals and use are greater during the summer than other times of the year, water availability in June, July, August, and September was compared to water withdrawals in the basin and subbasins. The ratios of water withdrawn to water available were calculated for the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles for the subbasins; the closer the ratio is to 1, the closer the withdrawals are to the estimated water available, and the less net water is available. Withdrawals in July were higher than in the other summer months in both basins. In the Pawtuxet River Basin, the ratios were close to 1 in July for the estimated gross yield (from sand and gravel and from till and from the Scituate Reservoir safe yield), 7-day, 10-year low-flow scenario, and Aquatic Base Flow scenario at the 75th percentile and in August for all three scenarios at the 50th and 25th percentiles. In the Quinebaug River Basin, the ratios were close to 1 in August for the estimated gross yield; 7-day, 10-year low-flow scenario; and Aquatic Base Flow scenario. A long-term water budget was calculated for 1941 through 1999 to identify and assess the basin and subbasin inflow and outflows for the Pawtuxet and Quinebaug River Basins. The water withdrawals and return flows used in the budget were from 1995 through 1999. Inflow was assumed to be equal to outflow; total inflows and outflows were 574.9 Mgal/d in the Pawtuxet River Basin and 148.4 Mgal/d in the Quinebaug River Basin. Precipitation and return flow were 95 and 5 percent of the estimated inflows to the Pawtuxet River Basin, respectively. Precipitation was 100 percent of the estimated inflow to the Quinebaug River Basin; return flow was less than 1 percent of the inflow. Evapotranspiration, streamflow, and water withdrawals were 46, 41, and 13 percent, respectively, of the estimated outflows in the Pawtuxet River Basin. Evapotranspiration and streamflow were 49 and 51 percent, respectively, of the estimated outflows in the Quinebaug River Basin. Water withdrawals were less than 1 percent of outflows in the Quinebaug River Basin.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 41.60312076451184° to 42.00950942549379° latitude; -71.79977416992188° to -71.39877319335938° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Emily C. Wild, Mark T. Nimiroski. 2007. Estimated water use and availability in the Pawtuxet and Quinebaug River basins, Rhode Island, 1995-99. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20065154

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Karst hydrologic processes in carbonate fensters of the western Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee, 2017–18

The geology of the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina is dominated by metamorphic strata. Along the western extent of the range, however, several carbonate fensters expose the Ordovician Jonesboro Limestone along the western edge of the Great Smoky Fault. The fensters (Cades Cove, Tuckaleechee Cove, and Wear Cove) create opportunities for allogenic recharge at the contact between the surrounding, relatively insoluble, strata and the underlying soluble formations, resulting in the development of karst systems. Karst environments have a high degree of connectivity between surface streams and groundwater systems; thus, karst aquifers are inherently vulnerable to contamination from surface activities. Karst environments also provide a specific environment for sensitive biota. Protection of the unique resources of karst environments requires an understanding of the behavior of karst aquifers, knowledge of karst recharge areas, and the mapping of groundwater flow paths. A study began in 2017 to characterize the hydrologic behavior of the karst systems in Great Smoky Mountains National Park through hydrologic monitoring, dye tracing, and seepage investigations. Hydrologic monitoring equipment was installed at several karst hydrogeologic features: two in-cave sites, two major springs, Abrams Creek in Cades Cove, and a karst depression wetland. Dye tracing was conducted to determine resurgences for the cave systems, to delineate spring recharge areas, and to estimate karst groundwater velocities. Seepage investigations along Abrams Creek helped determine if streams were sinking into the Jonesboro Limestone, either at the contact with insoluble strata or as streams flowed across the carbonate fenster. Study results indicate considerable differences in groundwater behavior between the conduit-dominated flow systems in Tuckaleechee Cove compared to the lower-gradient, colluvium-covered karst systems in Cades Cove. Study results also indicate that contaminants in the area of Bull sink and Whiteoak Sink could be rapidly transported through karst groundwater towards springs in Tuckaleechee Cove. Karst resources in Cades Cove are most likely to be affected by local events or activities taking place within the cove itself or in upper Abrams Creek upstream of the Great Smoky Fault. This study provides information on the vulnerability and uniqueness of the karst systems in the western Great Smoky Mountains, which are characterized by complex geology, high-gradient subterranean streams, deep caves, and carbonate fensters.

Tennessee↗

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Michigan↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗