Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Laura A. Simonson

Publications and source records attributed to Laura A. Simonson.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Summary of Hydrologic Data for the Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio, with an Annotated Bibliography

The Tuscarawas River Basin drains approximately 2,600 square miles in eastern Ohio and is home to 600,000 residents that rely on the water resources of the basin. This report summarizes the hydrologic conditions in the basin, describes over 400 publications related to the many factors that affect the groundwater and surface-water resources, and presents new water-quality information and a new water-level map designed to provide decisionmakers with information to assist in future data-collection efforts and land-use decisions. The Tuscarawas River is 130 miles long, and the drainage basin includes four major tributary basins and seven man-made reservoirs designed primarily for flood control. The basin lies within two physiographic provinces-the Glaciated Appalachian Plateaus to the north and the unglaciated Allegheny Plateaus to the south. Topography, soil types, surficial geology, and the overall hydrology of the basin were strongly affected by glaciation, which covered the northern one-third of the basin over 10,000 years ago. Within the glaciated region, unconsolidated glacial deposits, which are predominantly clay-rich till, overlie gently sloping Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, limestone, coal, and shale bedrock. Stream valleys throughout the basin are filled with sands and gravels derived from glacial outwash and alluvial processes. The southern two-thirds of the basin is characterized by similar bedrock units; however, till is absent and topographic relief is greater. The primary aquifers are sand- and gravel-filled valleys and sandstone bedrock. These sands and gravels are part of a complex system of aquifers that may exceed 400 feet in thickness and fill glacially incised valleys. Sand and gravel aquifers in this basin are capable of supporting sustained well yields exceeding 1,000 gallons per minute. Underlying sandstones within 300 feet of the surface also provide substantial quantities of water, with typical well yields of up to 100 gallons per minute. Although hydraulic connection between the sandstone bedrock and the sands and gravels in valleys is likely, it has not been assessed in the Tuscarawas River Basin. In 2001, the major land uses in the basin were approximately 40 percent forested, 39 percent agricultural, and 17 percent urban/residential. Between 1992 and 2001, forested land use decreased by 2 percent with correspondingly small increases in agricultural and urban land uses, but from 1980 to 2005, the 13-county area that encompasses the basin experienced a 7.1-percent increase in population. Higher population density and percentages of urban land use were typical of the northern, headwaters parts of the basin in and around the cities of Akron, Canton, and New Philadelphia; the southern area was rural. The basin receives approximately 38 inches of precipitation per year that exits the basin through evapotranspiration, streamflow, and groundwater withdrawals. Recharge to groundwater is estimated to range from 6 to 10 inches per year across the basin. In 2000, approximately 89 percent of the 116 million gallons per day of water used in the basin came from groundwater sources, whereas 11 percent came from surface-water sources. To examine directions of groundwater flow in the basin, a new dataset of water-level contours was developed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The contours were compiled on a map that shows that groundwater flows from the uplands towards the valleys and that the water-level surface mimics surface topography; however, there are areas where data were too sparse to adequately map the water-level surface. Additionally, little is known about deep groundwater that may be flowing into the basin from outside the basin and groundwater interactions with surface-water bodies. Many previous reports as well as new data collected as part of this study show that water quality in the streams and aquifers in the Tuscarawas River Basin has been degraded by urban, suburban, and rural

Scientific Investigations Report

Occurrence of antibiotic compounds in source water and finished drinking water from the upper Scioto River Basin, Ohio, 2005-6

The occurrence of antibiotics in surface water and groundwater in urban basins has become a topic of increasing interest in recent years. Little is known about the occurrence, fate, or transport of these compounds and the possible health effects in humans and aquatic life. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Columbus, Division of Power and Water, did a study to provide a synoptic view of the occurrence of antibiotics in source and finished waters in the upper Scioto River Basin. Water samples were collected seasonally-winter (December 2005), spring (May 2006), summer (August 2006) and fall (October 2006)-at five surface-water sites, one groundwater site, and three water-treatment plants (WTPs). Within the upper Scioto River Basin, sampling at each WTP involved two sampling sites: a source-water intake site and a finished-water site. One or more antibiotics were detected at 11 of the 12 sampling sites. Of the 49 targeted antibiotic compounds, 12 (24 percent) were detected at least one time for a total of 61 detections overall. These compounds were azithromycin, tylosin, erythromycin-H2O, erythromycin, roxithromycin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole, iso-chlorotetracycline, lincomycin, and trimethoprim. Detection results were at low levels, with an overall median of 0.014 (u or mu)g/L. Hap Cremean WTP had the fewest detections, with two source-water detections of sulfamethoxazole and azithromycin and no detections in the finished water. Of the total of 61 detections, 31 were in the winter sample run. Sulfamethoxazale and azithromycin detections represent 41 percent of all antibiotic detections. Azithromycin was detected only in the winter sample. Some antibiotics, such as those in the quinoline and tetracycline families, dissipate more quickly in warm water, which may explain why they were detected in the cool months (winter, spring, and fall) and not in the summer. Antibiotic data collected during this study were compared to antibiotic data collected in previous national, regional, and local studies. Many of the same antibiotic compounds detected in the upper Scioto River Basin also were detected in those investigations.

Ohio

Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis-An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species

The goal of the GAP Analysis Program is to keep common species common by identifying those species and habitats that are not yet adequately represented in the existing matrix of conservation lands. The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is sponsored by the Biological Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The Ohio Aquatic GAP (OH-GAP) is a pilot project that is applying the GAP concept to aquatic-specifically, riverine-data. The mission of GAP is to provide regional assessments of the conservation status of native animal species and to facilitate the application of this information to land-management activities. OH-GAP accomplished this through * mapping aquatic habitat types, * mapping the predicted distributions of fish, crayfish, and bivalves, * documenting the presence of aquatic species in areas managed for conservation, * providing GAP results to the public, planners, managers, policy makers, and researchers, and * building cooperation with multiple organizations to apply GAP results to state and regional management activities. Gap analysis is a coarse-scale assessment of aquatic biodiversity and conservation; the goal is to identify gaps in the conservation of native aquatic species. It is not a substitute for biological field studies and monitoring programs. Gap analysis was conducted for the continuously flowing streams in Ohio. Lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and the Lake Erie islands were not included in this analysis. The streams in Ohio are in the Lake Erie and Ohio River watersheds and pass through six of the level III ecoregions defined by Omernik: the Eastern Corn Belt Plains, Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift Plains, Huron/Erie Lake Plain, Erie Drift Plains, Interior Plateau, and the Western Allegheny Plateau. To characterize the aquatic habitats available to Ohio fish, crayfish, and bivalves, a classification system needed to be developed and mapped. The process of classification includes delineation of areas of relative homogeneity and labeling these areas using categories defined by the classification system. The variables were linked to the 1:100,000-scale streams of the National Hydrography Dataset of the USGS. Through discussions with Ohio aquatic experts, OH-GAP identified eight separate enduring physical features which, when combined, form the physical habitat type: * Shreve link (a measure of stream size) * Downstream Shreve link (a measure of stream connectivity and size) * Sinuosity * Gradient * Bedrock * Stream temperature * Character of glacial drift * Glacial-drift thickness Potential distribution models were developed for 130 fish, 70 bivalve, and 17 native crayfish species. These models are based on 5,686 fish, 4,469 crayfish, and 2,899 freshwater bivalve (mussels and clams) sampling locations, the variables describing the physical habitat types, and variables indicating the major drainage basins and Omernik's Level III ecoregion. All potential species distributions are displayed and analyzed at the 14-digit hydrologic unit (14-HUs), or subwatershed, level. Mainland Ohio contains 1,749 14-HUs. All statistics and conclusions, as well as spatial data, are discussed and presented in terms of these units. The Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis Project compiled a map of public and private conservation lands and OH-GAP classified the lands into four status categories (status 1 through status 4) by the degree of protection offered based on management practices. A status of 1 denotes the highest, most permanent level of maintenance, and status 4 represents the lowest level of biodiversity management, or unknown status. The results of this mapping show that only about 3.7 percent of the state's land (4.3 percent if lakes and reservoirs are also included) is protected for conservation, either publicly or privately. Of this total, state agencies control about 52 percent, and Federal agencies control about 29 percent. Conservation areas that presently protect

Open-File Report