Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Lance J. Ostiguy

Publications and source records attributed to Lance J. Ostiguy.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2018

High-water marks from Hurricane Sandy for coastal areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, October 2012

Because coastal areas in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts were heavily affected by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), under a mission agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, collected storm tide high-water marks in those coastal areas. This effort was undertaken to better understand the areal extent and impact of storm tides resulting from strong storms. On October 27–29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy moved up the eastern coast of the United States after passing over the Bahamas. On October 29 at about 7:30 p.m. eastern daylight time, Hurricane Sandy made landfall its final time near Brigantine, New Jersey, with recorded wind speeds of about 80 miles per hour. The damages from Hurricane Sandy exceeded $50 billion in total, making it the second most costly Atlantic hurricane at that time, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Hurricane Sandy also resulted in 147 deaths, and about 650,000 homes and many businesses being damaged along the eastern coast of the United States. The severity of Hurricane Sandy’s effects resulted in presidential disaster declarations being declared in 10 States from Virginia to Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in the months following Hurricane Sandy; the list of States affected included Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. In response to the approach of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS deployed 60 temporary storm tide sensors and 2 temporary real-time rapid deployment gages to collect tide elevation data during the storm along the coastal areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. This activity was done from Virginia to Maine before the storm. Following Hurricane Sandy, in October and November 2012, 371 storm tide high-water marks were identified and flagged in the coastal areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. High-water marks near USGS temporary storm tide sensors, real-time rapid deployment gages, and streamgages affected by the tides as well as high-water marks on Block Island, R.I., and Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, Mass., were surveyed at the same time the high-water marks were identified and flagged in October and November 2012. The remaining high-water marks flagged during October and November 2012 were surveyed from December 2013 through June 2014 and in December 2016. Elevations of all high-water marks were referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 and horizontal coordinates to the North American Datum of 1983 using the Global Navigation Satellite System, survey-grade Digital Global Positioning System receivers, and total station surveying equipment. Of the 371 storm tide high-water marks flagged following Hurricane Sandy, only 364 high-water marks were surveyed; the remaining 7 could not be found or had been destroyed when locations were revisited to conduct surveys. The 157 high-water marks surveyed in Connecticut had elevations that ranged from 2.5 to 12.2 feet (ft) with an average elevation of 8.1 ft and a median elevation of 8.3 ft. The 76 high-water marks in Rhode Island had elevations that ranged from 3.6 to 16.2 ft and averaged 7.1 ft with a median of 6.6 ft. The 131 high-water marks in Massachusetts had elevations that ranged from 2.8 to 22.7 ft and averaged 7.3 ft with a median of 6.6 ft. Individual information on the location, type, accuracy, and elevation of the 371 high-water marks can be found in an accompanying USGS data release and at the USGS Flood Event Viewer website for Hurricane Sandy ( https://stn.wim.usgs.gov/fev/#Sandy ). The high-water marks along the coast line of Connecticut and eastern Massachusetts, including Nantucket, generally had higher storm tide elevations than the coast line of Rhode Island including Block Island and southern Massachusetts, including Martha’s Vineyard. The high-water mark elevations compare well with recorded peak-storm tide data at USGS temporary storm tide sensors and real-time rapid deployment gages deployed for Hurricane Sandy in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. High-water mark data collected following Hurricane Sandy will be used by Federal, State, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and the public for better understanding the areal extent and impact of the storm tides. Additionally, these data can be used for such activities as land-use planning, flood risk studies, flood resiliency studies, and coastal modeling. These data from this historic storm can be compared with other regional hurricanes and tropical storms for planning into the future.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island↗
USGS2010

Indicators of streamflow alteration, habitat fragmentation, impervious cover, and water quality for Massachusetts stream basins

Massachusetts streams and stream basins have been subjected to a wide variety of human alterations since colonial times. These alterations include water withdrawals, treated wastewater discharges, construction of onsite septic systems and dams, forest clearing, and urbanization—all of which have the potential to affect streamflow regimes, water quality, and habitat integrity for fish and other aquatic biota. Indicators were developed to characterize these types of potential alteration for subbasins and groundwater contributing areas in Massachusetts. The potential alteration of streamflow by the combined effects of withdrawals and discharges was assessed under two water-use scenarios. Water-use scenario 1 incorporated publicly reported groundwater withdrawals and discharges, direct withdrawals from and discharges to streams, and estimated domestic-well withdrawals and septic-system discharges. Surface-water-reservoir withdrawals were excluded from this scenario. Water-use scenario 2 incorporated all the types of withdrawal and discharge included in scenario 1 as well as withdrawals from surface-water reservoirs—all on a long-term, mean annual basis. All withdrawal and discharge data were previously reported to the State for the 2000–2004 period, except domestic-well withdrawals and septic-system discharges, which were estimated for this study. The majority of the state’s subbasins and groundwater contributing areas were estimated to have relatively minor (less than 10 percent) alteration of streamflow under water-use scenario 1 (seasonally varying water use; no surface-water-reservoir withdrawals). However, about 12 percent of subbasins and groundwater contributing areas were estimated to have extensive alteration of streamflows (greater than 40 percent) in August; most of these basins were concentrated in the outer metropolitan Boston region. Potential surcharging of streamflow in August was most commonly indicated for main-stem river subbasins, although surcharging was also indicated for some smaller tributary subbasins. In the high-flow month of April, only 4.8 percent of subbasins and groundwater contributing areas had more than 10 percent potential flow alteration. A majority of the state’s subbasins and groundwater contributing areas were also indicated to have relatively minor alteration of streamflow under water-use scenario 2 (long-term average water use, including surface-water-reservoir withdrawals). Extensive alteration of mean annual flows was estimated for about 6 percent of the state’s subbasins and groundwater contributing areas. The majority of subbasins estimated to have extensive long-term flow alteration contained reservoirs that were specifically designed, constructed, and managed to supply drinking water to cities. Only a small number of subbasins and groundwater contributing areas (1 percent) were extensively surcharged on a long-term, mean annual basis. Because site-specific data concerning surface-water-reservoir storage dynamics and management practices are not available statewide, the seasonal effects of surface-water-reservoir withdrawals on downstream flows could not be assessed in this study. The impounded storage ratio (volume of impounded subbasin or groundwater-contributing-area storage divided by mean annual predevelopment outflow from the subbasin or contributing area, in units of days) indicates the potential for alteration of streamflow, sediment-transport, and temperature regimes by dams, independent of water use. Storage ratios were less than 1 day for 33 percent of the subbasins and groundwater contributing areas, greater than 1 month for about 40 percent of the cases, and greater than 1 year for 3.2 percent of the cases statewide. Dam density, an indicator of stream-habitat fragmentation by dams, averaged 1 dam for every 6.7 stream miles statewide. Many of these dams are not presently (2009) being managed. The highest dam densities were in portions of Worcester County and in the Plymouth-Carver region, respectively, reflecting the historical reliance of Massachusetts industry upon water power and agricultural water-management practices in southeastern Massachusetts. Impervious cover is a frequently used indicator of urban land use. About 33 percent of the state’s 1,429 subbasins and groundwater contributing areas are relatively undeveloped at the local scale, with a local impervious cover of less than 4 percent. About 18 percent of Massachusetts subbasins and contributing areas are highly developed, with a local impervious cover greater than 16 percent. The remaining 49 percent of subbasins and contributing areas have levels of urban development between these extremes (4 to 16 percent local impervious cover). Cumulative impervious cover, defined for the entire upstream area encompassed by each subbasin, shows a smaller range (0 to 55 percent) than local impervious cover. Both local and cumulative impervious cover were highest in metropolitan Boston and other urban centers. High elevated impervious-cover values were also found along major transportation corridors. The water-quality status of Massachusetts streams is assessed periodically by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. Streams selected for assessment are commonly located in larger subbasins where some degree of impairment is expected. In the 72 percent of the state’s subbasins and groundwater contributing areas with assessed streams in 2002, more than 50 percent of the assessed stream miles were considered impaired. All of the assessed stream miles were considered impaired in 66 percent of the subbasins and groundwater contributing areas with assessed streams. Large streams, such as the main stems of rivers that make up most of the assessed stream miles, also are in many cases the receiving waters for treated wastewater discharges and for this reason may be more susceptible to water-quality impairments than smaller streams. Subbasins and contributing areas with large fractions of assessed stream miles that are listed as impaired are distributed across the state, but are more prevalent in eastern Massachusetts.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2007

Simulation of Hydrologic-System Responses to Ground-Water Withdrawals in the Hunt-Annaquatucket-Pettaquamscutt Stream-Aquifer System, Rhode Island

A numerical-modeling study was done to better understand hydrologic-system responses to ground-water withdrawals in the Hunt-Annaquatucket-Pettaquamscutt (HAP) stream-aquifer system of Rhode Island. System responses were determined by use of steady-state and transient numerical ground-water-flow models. These models were initially developed in the late 1990s as part of a larger study of the stream-aquifer system. The models were modified to incorporate new data made available since the original study and to meet the objectives of this study. Changes made to the models did not result in substantial changes to simulated ground-water levels, hydrologic budgets, or streamflows compared to those calculated by the original steady-state and transient models. Responses of the hydrologic system are described primarily by changes in simulated streamflows and ground-water levels throughout the basin and by changes to flow conditions in the aquifer in three wetland areas immediately east of the Lafayette State Fish Hatchery, which lies within the Annaquatucket River Basin in the town of North Kingstown. Ground water is withdrawn from the HAP aquifer at 14 large-capacity production wells, at an industrial well, and at 3 wells operated by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management at the fish hatchery. A fourth well has been proposed for the hatchery and an additional production well is under development by the town of North Kingstown. The primary streams of interest in the study area are the Hunt, Annaquatucket, and Pettaquamscutt Rivers and Queens Fort Brook. Total model-calculated streamflow depletions in these rivers and brook resulting from withdrawals at the production, industrial, and fish-hatchery wells pumping at average annual 2003 rates are about 4.8 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) for the Hunt River, 3.3 ft3/s for the Annaquatucket River, 0.5 ft3/s for the Pettaquamscutt River, and 0.5 ft3/s for Queens Fort Brook. The actual amount of streamflow reduction in the Annaquatucket River caused by pumping actually is less, 1.1 ft3/s, because ground water that is pumped at the fish-hatchery wells (2.2 ft3/s) is returned to the Annaquatucket River after use at the hatchery. One of the primary goals of the study was to evaluate the response of the hydrologic system to simulated withdrawals at the proposed well at the fish hatchery. Withdrawal rates at the proposed well would range from zero during April through September of each year to a maximum of 260 gallons per minute [about 0.4 million gallons per day (Mgal/d)] in March of each year. The average annual withdrawal rate at the fish hatchery resulting from the addition of the proposed well would increase by only 0.13 ft3/s, or about 5 percent of the 2003 withdrawal rate. The increased pumping rate at the hatchery would further reduce the average annual flow in Queens Fort Brook by less than 0.05 ft3/s and in the Annaquatucket River by about 0.1 ft3/s (which includes some model error). A new production well in the Annaquatucket River Basin is under development by the town of North Kingstown. A simulated pumping rate of 1.0 Mgal/d (1.6 ft3/s) at this new well resulted in additional streamflow depletions, compared to those calculated for the 2003 withdrawal conditions, of 0.8 and 0.2 ft3/s in the Annaquatucket and Pettaquamscutt Rivers, respectively. The source of water for about 30 percent of the well's pumping rate, or about 0.5 ft3/s, is derived from ground-water inflow from the Chipuxet River Basin across a natural ground-water drainage divide that separates the Annaquatucket and Chipuxet River Basins; the remaining 0.1 ft3/s of simulated pumping consists of reduced evapotranspiration from the water table. Model-calculated changes in water levels in the aquifer for the various withdrawal conditions simulated in this study indicate that ground-water-level declines caused by pumping are generally less than 5 feet (ft). However, ground-water-level declines of as

Open-File Report↗