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

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.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗

USGS2026

World minerals outlook—Antimony, copper, graphite, niobium, potash, silicon, silver, and tungsten through 2030

Demand for mineral commodities continues to increase owing to rapid technological advancements and global economic growth. To support this increase in demand, information about current and near-term supplies of these mineral commodities is essential. Such data help evaluate the health and stability of global supply chains and protect against potential supply risks. Current production and production capacity data coupled with information regarding near-term expected changes (such as facility closures, planned expansions, or the completion of new mineral production projects) can provide insight into expected future market developments and expected available supply of mineral commodities. This report within the “World Minerals Outlook” series analyzes data for antimony, copper, natural graphite, niobium, potash, silicon metal, silver, and tungsten—eight mineral commodities listed in the 2025 List of Critical Minerals. World production data from 2019 through 2025, as well as estimated world capacity data from 2023 through 2025 were analyzed. Using these data, near-term (2026–2030) expected world capacities were estimated. For antimony, copper, niobium, silicon metal, silver, and tungsten, modest increases in production capacity of 4 to 10 percent were expected between 2025 and 2030, whereas capacities for natural graphite and potash were expected to increase by about 18 to 20 percent.

Scientific Investigations Report↗