Spatial Distribution of Ground-Water Recharge Estimated with a Water-Budget Method for the Jordan Creek Watershed, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

Dennis W. Risser

doi:10.3133/sir20085041

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20085041

Spatial Distribution of Ground-Water Recharge Estimated with a Water-Budget Method for the Jordan Creek Watershed, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

Dennis W. Risser

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This report presents the results of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, to illustrate a water-budget method for mapping the spatial distribution of ground-water recharge for a 76-square-mile part of the Jordan Creek watershed, northwest of Allentown, in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Recharge was estimated by using the Hydrological Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) water-budget model for 577 landscape units in Jordan Creek watershed, delineated on the basis of their soils, land use/land cover, and mean annual precipitation during 1951-2000. The water-budget model routes precipitation falling on each landscape unit to components of evapotranspiration, surface runoff, storage, and vertical percolation (recharge) for a five-layer soil column on a daily basis. The spatial distribution of mean annual recharge during 1951-2000 for each landscape unit was mapped by the use of a geographic information system. Recharge simulated by the water-budget model in Jordan Creek watershed during 1951-2000 averaged 12.3 inches per year and ranged by landscape unit from 0.11 to 17.05 inches per year. Mean annual recharge during 1951-2000 simulated by the water-budget model was most sensitive to changes to input values for precipitation and runoff-curve number. Mean annual recharge values for the crop, forest, pasture, and low-density urban land-use/land-cover classes were similar (11.2 to 12.2 inches per year) but were substantially less for high-density urban (6.8 inches per year), herbaceous wetlands (2.5 inches per year), and forested wetlands (1.3 inches per year). Recharge rates simulated for the crop, forest, pasture, and low-density urban land-cover classes were similar because those land-use/land-cover classes are represented in the model with parameter values that either did not significantly affect simulated recharge or tended to have offsetting effects on recharge. For example, for landscapes with forest land cover, values of runoff-curve number assigned to the model were smaller than for other land-use/land-cover classes (causing more recharge and less runoff), but the maximum depth of evapotranspiration was larger than for other land-use/ land-cover classes because of deeper root penetration in forests (causing more evapotranspiration and less recharge). The smaller simulated recharge for high-density urban and wetland land-use/land-cover classes was caused by the large values of runoff-curve number (greater than 90) assigned to those classes. The large runoff-curve number, however, certainly is not realistic for all wetlands; some wetlands act as areas of ground-water discharge and some as areas of recharge. Simulated mean annual recharge computed by the water-budget model for the 53-square-mile part of the watershed upstream from the streamflow-gaging station near Schnecksville was compared to estimates of recharge and base flow determined by analysis of streamflow records from 1967 to 2000. The mean annual recharge of 12.4 inches per year simulated by the water-budget method for 1967-2000 was less than estimates of mean annual recharge of 19.3 inches per year computed from the RORA computer program and base flow computed by the PART computer program (15.1 inches per year). In theory, the water-budget method provides a practical tool for estimating differences in recharge at local scales of interest, and the watershed- average recharge rate of 12.4 inches per year computed by the method is reasonable. However, the mean annual surface runoff of 4.5 inches per year simulated by the model is unrealistically small. The sum of surface runoff and recharge simulated by the water-budget model (16.9 inches per year) is 7 inches per year less than the streamflow measured at the gaging station near Schnecksville (23.9 inches per year) during 1967-2000, indicating that evapotranspiration is overestimated by the water-budget model by that amount. This discrepancy ca

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 40.25° to 41° latitude; -76° to -75° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Dennis W. Risser. 2008. Spatial Distribution of Ground-Water Recharge Estimated with a Water-Budget Method for the Jordan Creek Watershed, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20085041

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

USGS2026

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

USGS2026

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗