DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Use in Maryland a Workplan to Advance Water Use Science 2017-2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Use in Maryland a Workplan to Advance Water Use Science 2017-2020 Water Use in Maryland A Workplan to Advance Water Use Science 2017-2020 12 September 2016 (Revised October 25, 2016) Final Report Prepared for the Maryland Department of the Environment By Stuart S. Schwartz, PhD. Center for Urban Environmental Research and Education University of Maryland Baltimore County Page 2 of 52 Abstract Authority to manage Maryland’s water is vested in the Maryland Department of the Environment under Title 5 of the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Joint location of quantity, quality and sanitary surveys for drinking water systems within the Department’s Water Supply Program empowers MDE to coordinate systematic sustainable use and development of the State’s water resources. This workplan reviews and identifies the needs and priorities identified for Maryland’s Water Supply Program and lays out a workplan to improve the accuracy and utility of water use data in the State that will also help the USGS improve its water use information. This workplan is informed by a review of the current status of the water use program, the challenges and needs identified from water use stakeholders within the state, and the long-term vision of evolving the state permit and management program into a water use information system with the capacity to support statutory and regulatory functions in permitting, management, and enforcement, as well as long-term sustainable resource tracking, planning, and management, for the citizens of Maryland. The workplan is structured to advance two separable but complementary broad goals: improving water use data management, and improving the accuracy of Maryland’s water use information. Page 3 of 52 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Background/Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 2. Description of the Maryland Water Supply Program ........................................................................... 9 3. Maryland Water Use Priorities ........................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Collaborative Stakeholder Input Informed Workplan development ................................................ 15 3.2. Water Use Data Model ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Improved Water Use Estimation Methods ........................................................................................ 19 4. Proposed Approaches to Advance Maryland Priorities to Improve Water Use Data ............................. 23 Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 29 References ................................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix 1 Water Use Data Models .......................................................................................................... 33 Appendix 2 EIOLCA models ...................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 3 Well-Aquifer Association ....................................................................................................... 40 Appendix 4 NWIS Maryland Aquifer Codes .............................................................................................. 41 Appendix 5 Maryland Water Use Appropriation Permits ........................................................................... 47 Page 4 of 52 Executive Summary The Maryland Department of the Environment Water Supply Program's policies and regulatory decisions for managing the State's water resources are informed by water use data. The Water Supply Program provides water use data to the USGS on a regular basis. It is of paramount importance for both the Water Supply Program and the USGS to have accurate and reliable water use data so that the State's water resources are managed for the public good which includes ensuring their wise use and sustainability without jeopardizing the State's natural resources. Having accurate and readily accessible water use data is ever important in light of growing demands for water and the impact of climate change on sea level and the hydrologic cycle. This document describes Maryland’s priorities for a workplan to improve the collection, estimation and management of water use data for the State of Maryland. Maryland’s proposed Water Use Workplan has been structured to advance State and Federal interests in the Maryland Water Use Program during the period 2017-2020. The workplan reflects Maryland’s priorities for improved data collection and management, as well as USGS priorities for improved water use information to support the National Water Use Information Program. The workplan: Describes Maryland’s water use program; Outlines the State’s priorities for improving water use data in Maryland; and Identifies the steps proposed to address each priority, considering USGS baseline standards for water use data. The workplan reflects plans and priorities for near-term incremental improvement in water use information, building on the current state of water use data in Maryland. The workplan also reflects USGS priorities for the National Water Use Information Program that were identified through stakeholder meetings sponsored by the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP). For FFY17 these National priorities include: Improved data collection, quality assurance, and delivery Improved data for irrigation: sources of withdrawals, volumes, and consumptive use (includes irrigation for agriculture and golf courses) Improved estimation of public supply deliveries to customer groups or classes, such as commercial, industrial, and domestic. This workplan reflects State priorities for regulatory and resource management, as well as workplan requirements identified by the USGS Water Use Data and Research Program (WUDR). USGS workplan requirements included: 1. A description of the current State water use program. 2. An outline of State priorities for improving water use data. 3. The steps proposed to address priorities. 4. A description of the collaboration that was part of the Workplan development, or WUDR funding. 5. A description of additional tasks and products that were proposed in the Application for the 2015 WUDR cooperative agreements The workplan identified strategic priorities addressing two major themes: Page 5 of 52 1. advancing data management; and 2. improvements in the collection and accuracy of primary and secondary data to improve water use estimates and the information that supports the USGS WURD program. The outline of water use priorities and the steps proposed to achieve these priorities is summarized in Table ES-1. Page 6 of 52 Table ES-1 Maryland Water Use Workplan: Priorities & Approach Priority Proposed Approach Improve household estimation Analyze small CWS daily MOR production data Update “bottoms up” – indoor water use Stratify on socioeconomic, regional and hydrogeologic Estimate separable outdoor water use attributes Update residential use against WRF 2016 23-city study Improve Domestic Self Supply Values Reevaluate structure and variability in per capita water Improved per capita, modified by aquifer use from small CWS. yield Identify “natural” (regional, economic) clusters of Stratify by socioeconomic indicators homogenous household water use behavior Revise DSS per capita by region, socioeconomics, aquifer etc. Irrigation (reasonable checks and validation) Analyze validation alternatives for reported irrigation Estimation methods – crop need models (e.g. crop needs model, DE irrigation Compare to DE real-time guidance recommendations Peak, seasonal disaggregation Compare to Ag. Census and FRIS estimates Evaluate Domestic Self Supply Cumulative Automate DSS aquifer assignment (Model Builder) Aquifer Withdrawals from AIS and Well Database Well location and aquifer assignment Stratify confidence by estimated error. Tiered hierarchical analysis Verify random samples within each error strata and iteratively revise assignment rules to target manual well-log verification efforts Data Systems Management & Upgrades Added canned reports for pumpage by stream, aquifer, Clean up tasks use, use category, basin and range of grid locations Provide support additional data storage and Add support for pumpage by day and by well or well management field Online permittee submittals?? How to ensure Deploy capacity for direct user entry of pumpage chain of custody w/o paper record Fix current deficiencies in entry of use percentages and fresh and salt water determination. Automate Data QA/QC Screen and test “reasonableness” checks by sector (e.g. weather sensitivity of irrigation) and between years Checks with permit applications, economic activity, etc. Design & Develop Prototype Water Use Data Design Maryland WUDM (after NEWUD, NJWaTr) Model (WUDM). Prototype WUDM by logical joins of feature class tables. Join by permit number, other? Water Use Data Model Proof-of-concept Proof of concept
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historical Outline of Water Resources Development in the Lower Jordan River Basin1
    Historical Outline of Water Resources Development in the 1 Lower Jordan River Basin REBHIEH SULEIMAN Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.Email:[email protected] ABSTRACT The Jordan River is a multinational river flowing southwards through Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan and Palestine. It is totally developed except for the flow of its largest tributary, the Yarmouk River2 which forms the boundary between Syria and Jordan before joining the Jordan River, downstream of Lake Tiberias, and forms the border between Israel, Palestine and Jordan. In this paper, the historical development of the Jordan River basin in Jordan, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (HKJ), is addressed, highlighting the most significant factors that have played a role in the process to date. Water for irrigation was and still constitutes the largest share of water use. Thus the focus of this paper is mainly on the exploitation of the water resources of the Jordan River basin in Jordan for irrigation purposes. The scope to cover other uses would be complementary. Artifacts and historical evidences indicate human presence in the basin 400,000 years ago, while cultivation was mastered about 10,000 years ago. Literature also indicates fluctuating periods of prospers, stagnation, and declining going though the period from Paleolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman-Nabataeans, Umayyad, Mamluk and Ottoman. However, the developmental momentum of the Jordan River in Jordan has taken place during the last forty years, when large-scale water development projects were initiated and implemented to harness water resources for irrigation.
    [Show full text]
  • RI37 Stratigraphic Nomenclature Of
    ,--' ( UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO.37 STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF NONMARINE CRETACEOUS ROCKS OF INNER MARGIN OF COASTAL PLAIN IN DELAWARE AND ADJACENT STATES BY ROBERT R. JORDAN STATE OF DELAWARE.. NEWARK, DELAWARE JUNE 1983 STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF NONMARINE CRETACEOUS ROCKS OF INNER MARGIN OF COASTAL PLAIN IN DELAWARE AND ADJACENT STATES By Robert R. Jordan Delaware Geological Survey June 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT. ....... 1 INTRODUCTION ..... 2 Purpose and Scope. 2 Acknowledgments.. 4 REGIONAL SETTING. 4 Regional Relationships . 4 Structural Features. 5 DESCRIPTIONS OF UNITS .. 8 Historical Summary 8 Potomac Formation. 13 Nomenclature. 13 Extent. 13 Lithology . 14 Patuxent Formation . 18 Nomenclature. 18 Extent.. 18 Lithology .... 18 Arundel Formation. 19 Nomenclature.. 19 Extent. .• 19 Lithology • 20 Page Patapsco Formation. .. 20 Nomenclature . 20 Extent .. 20 Lithology.. 20 Raritan Formation . 21 Nomenclature .. 21 Extent .. 22 Lithology.. 23 Magothy Formation .. 24 Nomenclature . 24 Extent .. 24 Lithology.. 25 ENVIRONMENTS OF DEPOSITION 28 AGES .... 29 SUBDIVISIONS AND CORRELATIONS .. 32 REFERENCES . 34 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Geologic map of nonmarine Cretaceous deposits .. ..•.• •.. 3 2. Structural features of the Coastal Plain. ............ 6 3. Schematic diagram of lateral and vertical relationships of nonmarine Cretaceous deposits•....•... 34 TABLES Page Table 1. Usage of group and formation names. 9 STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE OF NONMARINE CRETACEOUS ROCKS OF INNER MARGIN OF COASTAL PLAIN IN DELAWARE AND ADJACENT STATES ABSTRACT Rocks of Cretaceous age deposited in continental and marginal environments, and now found along the inner edge of the northern Atlantic Coastal Plain, have historically been classified as the Potomac Group and the Potomac, Patuxent, Arundel, Patapsco, Raritan, and Magothy forma­ tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Analysis for Spring Bloom and Nutrient Limitation in Xiangxi Bay of Three Gorges Reservoir
    Environ Monit Assess (2007) 127:135–145 DOI 10.1007/s10661-006-9267-9 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Spatial analysis for spring bloom and nutrient limitation in Xiangxi bay of three Gorges Reservoir L. Ye · X.Q. Han · Y.Y. Xu · Q.H. Cai Received: 14 December 2005 / Accepted: 18 April 2006 / Published online: 21 October 2006 C Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006 Abstract The spatial and temporal dynamics of phys- of spring bloom. By comparing the interpolated maps ical variables, inorganic nutrients and phytoplankton of chlorophyll a and inorganic variables, obvious con- chlorophyll a were investigated in Xiangxi Bay from sumptions of Si and DIN were found when the bloom 23 Feb. to 28 Apr. every six days, including one daily status was serious. However, no obvious depletion of sampling site and one bidaily sampling site. The con- PO4P was found. Spatial regression analysis could ex- centrations of nutrient variables showed ranges of 0.02– plained most variation of Chl-a except at the begin of 3.20 mg/L for dissolved silicate (Si); 0.06–2.40 mg/L the first and second bloom. The result indicated that Si for DIN (NH4N + NO2N + NO3N); 0.03–0.56 mg/L was the factor limiting Chl-a in space before achieved for PO4P and 0.22–193.37 μg/L for chlorophyll a, the max area of hypertrophic in the first and second respectively. The concentration of chlorophyll a and bloom period. When Si was obviously exhausted, DIN inorganic nutrients were interpolated using GIS tech- became the factor limiting the Chl-a in space.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chemistry of Rocks in the Wissahickon Valley
    The Chemistry of Rocks in the Wissahickon Valley Cristobal Carambo Philadelphia High School for Girls Problem Statement Rationale Proposed Unit of Study Objectives Background Standards Used in the Unit Lesson Plans Appendix Bibliography Problem Statement The majority of my students are sophomores who have had little to no science during their middle school years. This lack of a comprehensive science program in their formative years explains much of their difficulty connecting science to their daily life. This is most evident when I introduce the periodic table of elements and attempt to explain how elements combine to form the many compounds that are necessary in our lives. Although I use many common household chemicals to illustrate the importance of elements and compounds, students still fail to fully appreciate the role that chemistry plays in our understanding of the physical world. I have often attempted to use the chemistry of the rock cycle to connect our class to the real world but many students are unaware of the rock cycle, or have had a cursory general survey of rocks. Understanding the role that elements play in the formation of minerals and how those minerals combine to form the many rock types and materials in our world would create a vibrant connection between the static elements on the periodic table and the world in which we live. In our conversations of the world around us, I have noticed that many of my students have had little or no experiences in natural settings where they could explore and make connections between the concepts learned in the classroom and their environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province
    Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geology of the Devonian Marcellus Shale—Valley and Ridge Province, Virginia and West Virginia— A Field Trip Guidebook for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Eastern Section Meeting, September 28–29, 2011 By Catherine B. Enomoto1, James L. Coleman, Jr.1, John T. Haynes2, Steven J. Whitmeyer2, Ronald R. McDowell3, J. Eric Lewis3, Tyler P. Spear3, and Christopher S. Swezey1 1U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192 2 James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807 3 West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV 26508 Open-File Report 2012–1194 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin
    DOE/NETL-2011/1478 A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors greatly thank Daniel J. Soeder (U.S. Department of Energy) who kindly reviewed the manuscript. His criticisms, suggestions, and support significantly improved the content, and we are deeply grateful. Cover. Top left: The Barnett Shale exposed on the Llano uplift near San Saba, Texas. Top right: The Marcellus Shale exposed in the Valley and Ridge Province near Keyser, West Virginia. Photographs by Kathy R. Bruner, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bottom: Horizontal Marcellus Shale well in Greene County, Pennsylvania producing gas at 10 million cubic feet per day at about 3,000 pounds per square inch.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Arundel County
    1 Anne I .\RUNDE1 County ilBII pi I • 'lill Mllvlli 'il I I I 1 ;■ ' 11 {[[•^1 I Dept. 6eo«ogy. 8B< Wj,w Johns Hopkins Univewity Baltimore, Maryland MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BALTIMORE THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 1917 COMMISSION EMEESON C. HARRINGTON, .... Peesident. GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND JOHN M. DENNIS, COMPTROLLER OF MARYLAND FRANK J. GOODNOW, .... Executive Officer. PRESIDENT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY H. J. PATTERSON, Secretary. PRESIDENT OF THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE ■ SCIENTIFIC STAFF Wm. Bullock Clark, State Geologist. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SURVEY. Edward B. Matiiews, . Assistant State Geologist. C. K. Swartz, Geologist. E. W. Berry, Geologist. J. T. Singewald, Jr., Geologist. Also with the cooperation of several members of the scientific bureaus of the National Government. LETTER OF TRANSM1TTAL To His Excellency Emerson C. Harrington, Governor of Maryland and President of the Geological Survey Commission. Sir:—I have the honor to present herewith a report on The Physical Features of Anne Arundel County. This volume is the eighth of a series of reports on the county resources, and is accompanied by large scale topographical, geological, and agricultural soil maps. The information contained in this volume will prove of both economic and educational value to the residents of Anne Arundel County as well as to those who may desire information regarding this section of the State. I am, Very respectfully, Wm. Bullock Clark, State Geologist. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. March, 1916. ■ ■ CONTENTS page PREFACE 19 DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY. By Homer P. Little 23 Introductory 23 HISTORICAL REVIEW 23 General Contributions 23 The Lower Cretaceous 26 The Upper Cretaceous 29 The Eocene 30 The Miocene 31 The Pliocene (?) and Pleistocene 32 Bibliography 34 THE PHYSIOGRAPHY OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania State Water Plan Update of 2009
    STATEWIDE WATER DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Dear Reader: As Chairperson of the Statewide Water Resources Committee and Acting Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), we are pleased to present you with the Pennsylvania State Water Plan (Plan). The Plan is the culmination of more than five years of data gathering, analysis and research, and we believe that the Plan will prove to be a meaningful and useful tool that will benefit each and every Pennsylvanian. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the 169 members of the Statewide and Regional Water Resources Committees who graciously volunteered their time to oversee and participate in this process. Their input and expertise were invaluable to the development of the Plan, and we look forward to continuing working with them into the future. Following is the State Water Plan Principles which highlights the State Water Plan Priorities and Recommendations for Action, key components of the Plan that will carry us into the next five years and lay the groundwork for future versions of the Plan. The Plan in its entirety is also available on DEP’s worldwide Web site to further engage the public and provide the resources needed for anyone to make informed decisions about water resources management. By providing improved information to make more informed decisions, we can continue to make the commonwealth a great place to live, work and recreate, and still be surrounded by beautiful natural resources. Sincerely, Sincerely, Donald C. Bluedorn II John Hanger Chair Acting Secretary Statewide Water Resources Committee Department of Environmental Protection TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A Vision for Pennsylvania’s Future ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Investigations in Ohio
    INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 21 GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN OHIO 1956 By Carolyn Farnsworth STATE OF OHIO C. William O'Neill, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A. W. Marion, Director NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Milton Ronsheim, Chairman John A. Slipher, Bryce Browning, Vice Chairman Secretary C. D. Blubaugh Dean L. L. Rummell Forrest G. Hall Dr. Myron T. Sturgeon A. W. Marion George Wenger DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Ralph J. Bernhagen, Chief STATI OF OHIO DIPAlTMIMT 011 NATUlAL llSOUlCH DIVISION OF &EOLO&ICAL SURVEY INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 21 'GEOLOG·ICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN OHIO 1956 by CAROLYN FARNSWORTH COLUMBUS 1957 Blank Page CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Project listing by author 2 Project listing by subject . 22 Economic geology 22 Aggregates . 22 Coal . • 22 Ground water 22 Iron .. 22 Oil and gas 22 Salt . 22 Sand and gravel 23 General .. 23 Geomorphology 23 Geophysics 23 Glacial geology 23 Mineralogy and petrology . 24 Clay .. 24 Coal . 24 Dolomite 24 Limestone. 24 Sandstone •• 24 Shale. 24 Till 25 Others 25 Paleontology. 25 Stratigraphy and sedimentation 26 Structural geology . 27 Miscellaneous . 27 Geographic distribution. 27 Statewide 27 Areal. \\ 28 County 29 Miscellaneous . 33 iii Blank Page I INTRODUCTION In September 1956, letters of inquiry and questionnaires were sent to all Ohio geologists on the mailing list of the Ohio Geological Survey, and to other persons who might be working on geological problems in Ohio. This publication has been compiled from the information contained on the returned forms. In most eases it is assumed that the projects listed herein will culminate in reports which will be available to the profession through scientific journals, government publications, or grad- uate school theses.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Piedmont in the Savage and Relay Quadrangles, Howard, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map of the Piedmont in the Savage and Relay Quadrangles, Howard, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties, Maryland By Avery Ala Drake, Jr.1 Open-File Report 98-757 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 'Reston, VA 1998 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE PIEDMONT IN THE SAVAGE AND RELAY QUADRANGLES, HOWARD, BALTIMORE, AND ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTIES, MARYLAND by Avery Ala Drake, Jr. INTRODUCTION The Piedmont in the Savage and Relay quadrangles (fig. 1) is largely in Howard County, Maryland. The northeasternmost part is in Baltimore County, Maryland and about 0.03 square miles is in Anne Arundel County. Most of the area is suburban and almost all outcrops are restricted to the Patapsco, Middle Patuxent, Little Patuxent, and other stream valleys. Crystalline rocks of the central Appalachian Piedmont within these quadrangles are overlain in many places by Coastal Plain deposits of Cretaceous age. Alluvium occurs along most streams. The geology of adjacent quadrangles on the west and south has been mapped by Drake (in press, unpublished data, 1991-1997) and J.N. Roen and A.A. Drake, Jr. (in press), and that to the north and east by Crowley (1976). The tectonics of the area were interpreted by Crowley (1976) and Drake (1995). Aeromagnetic and gravity surveys of the area were interpreted by Bromery (1968).
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGIC SUMMARY of the APPALACHIAN BASIN, with REFERENCE to the SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL of RADIOACTIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS by George W
    TEI-791 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY" GEOLOGIC SUMMARY OF THE APPALACHIAN BASIN, WITH;REFERENCE TO THE SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS* By George W. Colton June 1961 Report TEI-791 This report is preliminary and ha^;not been edited for conformity with G^logical Survey format and nomenclature. ?1 ^Prepared on behalf of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. CONTENTS Abstract* .......................... 5 Introduction. ........................ 7 Purpose of report. ................... 7 Organization of report .................. 7 Location and extent of area. .............. Q Acknowledgments. .................... 10 Geologic framework. ..................... 10 Depositional framework ................. 10 Structural framework .................. llj. Stratigraphy. ........................ 17 Late Precambrian stratified sequence .......... 17 Early Cambrian clastic sequence. ............ 18 Thickness and depth ................ 22 Cambrian-Ordovician carbonate sequence ......... 23 Thickness and depth . , ........... 35 Late Ordovician clastic sequence ............ 35 Thickness and depth ................ Mi- Early Silurian clastic sequence. ............ kk Thickness and depth ................ 51 Silurian-Devonian carbonate sequence .......... 52 Thickness and depth ................ 62 Devonian classic sequence. ............... 63 Thickness and depth ................ 69 Mississippian sequence ................. 70 Thickness and depth ................ 79 Pennsylvanian sequence ................. 79 Waste
    [Show full text]
  • Lexington Quadrangle Virginia
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY OF THE LEXINGTON QUADRANGLE VIRGINIA KENNETH F. BICK REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS I VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Jomes L. Colver Commissioner of Minerol Resources ond Stote Geologist CHARLOTTESVI LLE, VI RGI N IA 1960 Couuowwoer,rn op Vtncrwre DopenrupNr op Puncnesrs exo Supptv Rrculroxn 1960 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Richmond. Virginia MenvrN M. SurHnnr,eNn, Director BOARD Vrcron W. Stnwenr, Petersburg, Chairtnan G. Ar,vrn MessnNnunc, Hampton, Viee'Chairman A. Pr,urvrnr BmnNn, Orange C. S. Cenrnn, Bristol ANpnpw A. Fenr,pv, Danville WonrnrrvcroN FauLKNEn, Glasgow SvoNpv F. Slter,r,, Roanoke EnwrN H. Wrr,r,, Richmond Wrr,r,renr P. Wooor,nv. Norfolk CONTENTS Pece Abstract. '"*i"#:;;;;: . : ::: , : ::.:::::::::..::::::. :.::.::::::: ::,r Z Geography 8 Purpose. 4 Previous Work. Present Work and Acknowledgements. 5 Geologic Formations. 6 Introduction. 6 Precambrian System. 6 Pedlar formation 6 Precambrian and Cambrian Systems. 6 Discussion. 6 Swift Run formation 8 Catoctin greenstone. I Unieoiformation...... ......... I Hampton(Harpers)formation. .......... I Erwin (Antietam) quartzite. Cambrian System . I0 Shady (Tomstown) dolomite 10 Rome (Waynesboro) formation.... ll Elbrook formation. 12 Conococheague limestone. l3 Ordovician System. ......., 14 Chepultepeclimestone. .......... 14 Beekmantown formatron. 14 New Market limestone. 15 Lincolnshire limestone. 16 Edinburg formation. 16 Martinsburg shale... 17 SilurianSystem. ......... 18 Clinchsandstone..... .......... 18 Clinton formation.
    [Show full text]