Effects of Land-Use Changes and Ground-Water Withdrawals on Stream Base Flow, Pocono Creek Watershed, Monroe County, Pennsylvania

Ronald A. Sloto

doi:10.3133/sir20085030

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20085030

Effects of Land-Use Changes and Ground-Water Withdrawals on Stream Base Flow, Pocono Creek Watershed, Monroe County, Pennsylvania

Ronald A. Sloto

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Pocono Creek watershed drains 46.5 square miles in eastern Monroe County, Pa. Between 2000 and 2020, the population of Monroe County is expected to increase by 70 percent, which will result in substantial changes in land-use patterns. An evaluation of the effect of reduced recharge from land-use changes and additional ground-water withdrawals on stream base flow was done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Delaware River Basin Commission as part of the USEPA?s Framework for Sustainable Watershed Management Initiative. Two models were used. A Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model developed by the USEPA provided areal recharge values for 2000 land use and projected full buildout land use. The USGS MODFLOW-2000 ground-water-flow model was used to estimate the effect of reduced recharge from changes in land use and additional ground-water withdrawals on stream base flow. This report describes the ground-water-flow-model simulations. The Pocono Creek watershed is underlain by sedimentary rock of Devonian age, which is overlain by a veneer of glacial deposits. All water-supply wells are cased into and derive water from the bedrock. In the ground-water-flow model, the surficial geologic units were grouped into six categories: (1) moraine deposits, (2) stratified drift, (3) lake deposits, (4) outwash, (5) swamp deposits, and (6) undifferentiated deposits. The unconsolidated surficial deposits are not used as a source of water. The ground-water and surface-water systems are well connected in the Pocono Creek watershed. Base flow measured on October 13, 2004, at 27 sites for model calibration showed that streams gained water between all sites measured except in the lower reach of Pocono Creek. The ground-water-flow model included the entire Pocono Creek watershed. Horizontally, the modeled area was divided into a 53 by 155 cell grid with 6,060 active cells. Vertically, the modeled area was discretized into four layers. Layers 1 and 2 represented the unconsolidated surficial deposits where they are present and bedrock where the surficial deposits are absent. Layer 3 represented shallow bedrock and was 200 ft (feet) thick. Layer 4 represented deep bedrock and was 300 ft thick. A total of 873 cells representing streams were assigned to layer 1. Recharge rates for model calibration were provided by the USEPA SWAT model for 2000 land-use conditions. Recharge rates for 2000 for the 29 subwatersheds in the SWAT model ranged from 6.11 to 22.66 inches per year. Because the ground-water-flow model was calibrated to base-flow data collected on October 13, 2004, the 2000 recharge rates were multiplied by 1.18 so the volume of recharge was equal to the volume of streamflow measured at the mouth of Pocono Creek. During model calibration, adjustments were made to aquifer hydraulic conductivity and streambed conductance. Simulated base flows and hydraulic heads were compared to measured base flows and hydraulic heads using the root mean squared error (RMSE) between measured and simulated values. The RMSE of the calibrated model for base flow was 4.7 cubic feet per second for 27 locations, and the RMSE for hydraulic heads for 15 locations was 35 ft. The USEPA SWAT model was used to provide areal recharge values for 2000 and full buildout land-use conditions. The change in recharge ranged from an increase of 37.8 percent to a decrease of 60.8 percent. The ground-water-flow model was used to simulate base flow for 2000 and full buildout land-use conditions using steady-state simulations. The decrease in simulated base flow ranged from 3.8 to 63 percent at the streamflow-measurement sites. Simulated base flow at streamflow-gaging station Pocono Creek above Wigwam Run near Stroudsburg, Pa. (01441495), decreased 25 percent. This is in general agreement with the SWAT model, which estimated a 30.6-percent loss in base flow at the streamflow-gaging station.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 39.5° to 41.75° latitude; -76.25° to -74.25° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ronald A. Sloto. 2008. Effects of Land-Use Changes and Ground-Water Withdrawals on Stream Base Flow, Pocono Creek Watershed, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20085030

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↗