REPORT

Cretaceous aquifers in North Carolina: analysis of safe yield based on historical data
Ralph C. Heath Richard K. Spruill

Abstract The Cretaceous aquifers underlying the central part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain are used extensively as the preferred source of water for municipalities, industries, and agriculture. Regional decline in head in the middle parts of the system (the Upper Cape Fear and Black Creek aquifers) began in the late 1950s to early 1960s. The trends in head during the 1960s, together with data on land subsidence, were analyzed to demonstrate the value of using early data, in conjunction with conceptual models, before collecting additional data. The sources of withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers identified in the conceptual model are: (1) movement of water (recharge) across confining beds, (2) reduction in natural discharge, (3) release of water from aquifer storage, (4) drainage of water from fine-grained lenses in aquifers and confining beds, and (5) release of water resulting from advance of the salt-water front. Estimates of the amounts derived from each of these sources resulted in a reduction of the estimated safe yield of the Cretaceous aquifers in the 2,486-mi2 (6,439-km2) area of the central Coastal Plain from 75 mgd (million gallons per day) (284,000 m3/day) to less than 5 mgd (19,000 m3/ day). Rsum Les aquifres crtacs de la partie centrale de la plaine ctire de Caroline du Nord sont largement utiliss comme source deau prfre pour les collectivits, les industries et lagriculture. La diminution rgionale des charges dans les parties mdianes du systme (les aquifres de Cape Fear suprieur et de Black Creek) a dbut entre la fin des annes 1950 et le dbut des annes 1960. Les tendances des charges au cours des annes 1960, associes aux donnes sur la subsidence des terrains, ont t analyses pour dmontrer lintrt dutiliser des donnes prcoces, en association avec des modles conceptuels, avant de rcolter des donnes supplmentaires. Les termes dcoulement dans laquifre
Received: 11 March 2002 / Accepted: 27 November 2002 Published online: 1 March 2003  Springer-Verlag 2003 R. C. Heath R. K. Spruill ()) East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, 27858, USA e-mail: rkspruill@earthlink.net Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

crtac identifis dans le modle conceptuel sont les suivants: (1) la drainance (recharge) au travers des niveaux de confinement, (2) la rduction de la dcharge naturelle, (3) le dstockage de leau de laquifre, (4) le drainage de leau des lentilles faible granulomtrie dans les aquifres et les niveaux de confinement, et (5) la libration deau sous leffet de la propagation du biseau sal. Les estimations des quantits provenant de chacune de ces sources ont conduit rviser la baisse lestimation du dbit dexploitation optimal des aquifres crtacs, couvrant une surface de 6.439 km2 dans la partie centrale de la plaine ctire, de 284.000 m3/j moins de 19.000 m3/j. Resumen Los acuferos Cretcicos situados bajo la zona central del Llano Costero de Carolina del Norte (Estados Unidos de Amrica) son utilizados ampliamente como suministro de agua para municipios, industrias y agricultura. El descenso regional del nivel pizomtrico en las zonas centrales del sistema acufero superior de Cape Fear y de Black Creek comenz entre finales de la dcada de los cincuenta (1950) y principios de la dcada de los sesenta (1960). Se ha analizado las tendencias de los niveles durante los aos sesenta y los datos de subsidencia para demostrar el valor de los datos iniciales, junto con los modelos conceptuales, antes de proceder a la adquisicin de ms datos. Los tipos de extracciones identificados en los acuferos Cretcicos son: (1) el movimiento de agua (recarga) a travs de capas confinantes; (2) la disminucin de la recarga natural; (3) la obtencin de agua del almacenamiento en el acufero; (4) el drenaje de lentejones de grano fino en acuferos y capas confinantes; y (5) la liberacin de agua como consecuencia del avance del frente de aguas salinas. Se estima que las extracciones asociadas a estos conceptos significan una reduccin del valor de garanta del almacenamiento en los acuferos Cretcicos, que pasaran de valer 284.000 m3/d (75 mgd) a menos de 19.000 m3/d (5 mgd) en los 6.439 km2 (2.486 mi2) que conforman la llanura central costera. Keywords Coastal aquifers Conceptual models Cretaceous aquifers Groundwater management Groundwater recharge/water budget Over-abstraction Safe yield Salt-water/fresh-water relations Subsidence

DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

250 Fig. 1 Map of the central Coastal Plain area showing location of counties, towns, and monitoring wells

Introduction
The excellent quality of the water and the relatively large yields of the Cretaceous aquifers underlying the North Carolina Coastal Plain have made these aquifers the preferred source of water for municipalities, industries, and agriculture. As a result of population and economic growth, withdrawals from these aquifers have increased from a few million gallons per day (mgd) in the 1950s (Eimers et al. 1990) to about 35 mgd (133,000 m3/day) in 1990 (Terziotti et al. 1994). These increases in withdrawals have been accompanied by declines in water levels that were first observed in the early 1960s and which have since resulted in the development of a regionwide cone of depression in the central Coastal Plain area in which drawdown near large pumping centers exceeds 100 ft (30 m) (Giese et al. 1997). Both the magnitude and the extent of the water-level declines have led to increasing concern that the safe yield of the aquifers has been exceeded. As a result, the State
Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

has declared the central part of the Coastal Plain a Capacity-Use Area, which permits regulation of withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers (Anonymous 1998). The purpose of this article is to analyze the water-level declines in the Cretaceous aquifers underlying the central part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. The analysis deals with the declines in head in the aquifers at the time they were first observed in the 1960s relative to the sources of withdrawals and their bearing on safe yield. The analysis also demonstrates the value to groundwater studies based on thorough evaluation of available data prior to collection of new data.

Hydrogeologic Setting
The five counties that comprise the central Coastal Plain area of North Carolina are shown in Fig. 1. The area is underlain by an eastward-thickening wedge of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, clay, and moldic to arenaDOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

251

Fig. 2 Hydrogeologic section through the central Coastal Plain showing the Cretaceous aquifers and confining beds and position of saltwater front. (Adopted from Winner and Coble 1996, PIate 6)

ceous limestone, which attain a maximum thickness of about 1,000 ft (300 m) (Fig. 2). The lower part of the deposits consists of complexly interbedded layers of sand, silt, and clay of Cretaceous age that have been divided into four formations which, from top to bottom, consist of the Peedee, Black Creek, Upper Cape Fear, and Lower Cape Fear (Winner and Coble 1996). Each of these formations has been subdivided into aquifers and their overlying confining beds as shown in Fig. 2. Of the four aquifers, the Black Creek and the Upper Cape Fear are the most heavily developed as water-supply sources. The uppermost aquifer, the Peedee, is not intensively developed because its relatively shallow depth below land surface limits available drawdown and because, in much of the central Coastal Plain, water from the aquifer contains excessive amounts of iron and total organic carbon. Also, few wells in the central Coastal Plain draw water from the Lower Cape Fear because adequate yields can be obtained from the overlying aquifers and because of the danger of salt-water encroachment. The Tertiary aquifers and confining beds contribute some recharge to the underlying Cretaceous units but are not considered in the following discussions. Prior to the 1950s, flowing wells screened in the Cretaceous aquifers existed in and near stream floodplains in the Cretaceous outcrop area. By the 1960s, many of these wells had ceased to flow and, when the first waterlevel observation wells were established in the area in the early 1960s, water levels were observed to be declining.
Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

Over the years since, as new wellfields were developed and as withdrawals at existing wellfields increased, the decline has continued (Giese et al. 1997; Anonymous 1998). The continuing decline in water levels in the central Coastal Plain area suggests that the withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers exceed the rate at which the supply is being renewed and that this condition began possibly as long ago as the late 1950s or early 1960s.

Safe-Yield Concept
Speculation that there is a determinable rate, a safe yield, at which ground water can be withdrawn indefinitely from an aquifer, or from a groundwater system, in a defined area without causing an undesirable adverse effect, has been one of the most discussed and most controversial concepts in groundwater hydrology. [See, for example, Lohman (1979), pp. 6162, and Fetter (1988), pp. 450452.] groundwater hydrologists have long recognized that the rate at which withdrawals from aquifers or groundwater systems can be sustained depends on their hydraulic characteristics, the location of wells relative to recharge and discharge areas, available drawdown, and other factors. They have also recognized that because of the very complex physical characteristics of most groundwater systems, and their very complex response to withdrawals, this rate cannot be precisely

DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

252

determined prior to extensive development of the aquifer or groundwater system. Other factors that affect the determination of safe yield include economics of groundwater development, protection of groundwater quality, protection of existing legal rights, and potential environmental degradation (Fetter 1988, p. 450). All of these factors except economics have the potential to result in an undesirable adverse effect. Relative to economics, a development that is not economical today may very well be economical tomorrow. Determining the rate at which water can be withdrawn indefinitely from an aquifer or groundwater system clearly falls within the purview of groundwater hydrologists. The effect on the aquifer or groundwater system when water is withdrawn at this rate is also in the purview of hydrologists. However, whether this effect is deemed intolerable is largely a management or public-official decision. The fact that determining the safe yield involves hydrologists and may also involve water managers or public officials seems to be the cause of much of the controversy regarding use of the term safe yield. In an effort to avoid this controversy, some hydrologists prefer the term groundwater sustainability (Alley et al. 1999) and Wood (2001) proposes the term renewability. The term renewability may be preferable to sustainability, but determining either of those yields will involve consideration of the same factors that are involved in determining the safe yield. Thus no advantage is derived from their adoption. Hydrologists, as well as water managers and many public officials, think in terms of the yield of wells, or wellfields, or even surface reservoirs. Therefore, in spite of the complications and numerous considerations involved in determining the safe yield of an aquifer or groundwater system, we believe that the term safe yield conveys a meaning more readily apparent than does either renewability or sustainability. Every withdrawal of water from an aquifer or a groundwater system has an effect, as Theis (1940) so succinctly described in his classic paper on the source of water derived from wells. As Theis explained, a decline in groundwater levels will accompany both the initiation of, and any increase in, withdrawals. Reduction of storage will continue until the pre-existing groundwater discharge is reduced and/or groundwater recharge is increased by an amount equal to the withdrawals. Reductions in groundwater discharge that significantly reduce the flow of small streams may be an undesired effect, but the same reductions in large streams may be of no consequence. Similarly, an increase in groundwater recharge may be highly beneficial in some situations and detrimental in others. Because the effect of groundwater withdrawals may be not only inconsequential but also beneficial, concerns by water managers about undesired effects may not be an issue, so that the determination of what yield is safe is strictly a hydrologic decision. Where the withdrawals from an aquifer or groundwater system in any area exceed the amount by which discharge can be reduced and recharge can be increased, storage
Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

will continue to decrease and water levels will continue to decline. Where such a situation exists, the safe yield has been exceeded. This appears to be the case in the lower and middle Cretaceous aquifers in the central part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, as described in the following sections.

Withdrawals in the Central Coastal Plain

The central part of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, as used in this article, encompasses an area of 2,486 mi2 (6,439 km2) occupied by the five counties shown in Fig. 1. Groundwater withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers underlying this area were about 8 mgd (30,000 m3/day) in 1960 and about 15 mgd (57,000 m3/day) in 1970 (Winner and Lyke 1986, Table 1). The largest withdrawals (about 5 mgd) (19,000 m3/day) in 1960 were at Kinston and at a DuPont Corp. plant about 6 miles (10 km) northeast of Kinston (Fig. 1). The next largest withdrawals, at Farmville and Greenville, 25 miles (40 km) north of Kinston, totaled 1.2 mgd (4,500 m3/day) in 1960. The remaining 1.8 mgd (6,800 m3/day) of withdrawals, most of which were individually less than 0.1 mgd (400 m3/ day), occurred at small towns and installations widely scattered over the area to the north and west of Kinston. Relative to the 1960s withdrawals, more than 60% were concentrated in two areas only about 6 miles apart, at Kinston and at the DuPont plant. It was estimated that withdrawals in 1965 were about 10 mgd (38,000 m3/day) in the five counties, of which about 6 mgd (23,000 m3/ day) were being withdrawn at Kinston and by DuPont. By 1970, the combined withdrawals at Kinston and by DuPont had increased to about 7.5 mgd (28,000 m3/day), or to about one half of the total withdrawals of 15 mgd (57,000 m3/day) from the Cretaceous aquifers. The combined withdrawals at Farmville and Greenville had increased to about 3.3 mgd (12,500 m3/day). The most significant development during the 1960s was the establishment of a new wellfield in the Cretaceous aquifers by the City of New Bern, at Cove City, about 15 miles (24 km) southeast of Kinston (Fig. 1). Withdrawals at this wellfield began in 1968 at a rate of about 2 mgd (7,000 m3/day) and remained at this rate through 1970 (Winner and Lyke 1986, Table 1). The withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers in the central Coastal Plain area had increased to about 20 mgd (76,000 m3/day) by 1986 (Eimers et al. 1990, Table 2).

Water-Level Response to the Withdrawals

The collection of water-level data for the Cretaceous aquifers in the central Coastal Plain first began at well no. NC 48 in 1963 and at well NC 44 (Fig. 1) in 1965. These wells are the only observation wells open to the Cretaceous aquifers for which water-level data are available for the 1960s. The large-volume, Cretaceousaquifer production wells closest to these monitoring wells
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

253

Previous Studies of the Central Coastal Plain Aquifers

Aquifers of the central Coastal Plain area are the most intensively studied in North Carolina. They have been covered both in reports devoted primarily to the area and in reports dealing with the entire Coastal Plain. Only the most significant reports pertinent to this article will be mentioned here. The first attempt to map the cone of depression in the Kinston-DuPont area was made in 1965 by Nelson and Barksdale (1965, Fig. 9). A more comprehensive investigation covering a larger area was begun in 1977 (Narkunas 1980). Because of increasing local concern about declining water levels, the US Geological Survey (USGS) began studies of the central Coastal Plain area in 1983, which resulted in the preparation of potentiometricsurface maps of the Cretaceous aquifers and published reports including Winner and Lyke (1989) and Eimers et al. (1990). The central Coastal Plain area is also covered in the reports on the entire Coastal Plain area that were prepared by the USGS as a part of the National program of Regional Aquifer System Analyses (Winner and Coble 1996; Giese et al. 1997). The principal focus of most of the previous studies has been to describe the hydrogeology, to record the decline in water levels and map the cones of depression, and to develop computer models (simulations).

Fig. 3 Hydrographs of wells NC 44 and NC 48 from the beginning of records until 1970

were the Kinston and DuPont pumping centers, which are located about 16 miles (26 km) from well NC 44 and about 22 miles (35 km) from NC 48 (Fig. 1). Hydrographs depicting water-level fluctuations in wells NC 44 and NC 48, from the beginning of record until 1970, are shown in Fig. 3. Well NC 44 is only about 500 ft (150 m) from the easternmost of three pumping wells that comprised the New Bern wellfield in 1968. The start of withdrawals at this wellfield in 1968 is clearly evident from the hydrograph. Note, however, that the water level in the well was declining at a rate of about 2 ft/ year (0.7 m/year) caused by the withdrawals at Kinston and DuPont prior to the beginning of operation of the New Bern wellfield. Note, also, that the water level in well NC 48 was also declining at an essentially constant rate of about 0.5 ft/year (0.2 m/year), caused by the Kinston and DuPont withdrawals, from the beginning of the record in 1963. The declines of the water levels in wells NC 44 and NC 48 in the early to mid-1960s at distances of 16 miles (26 km) and 22 miles (35 km), respectively, from the nearest points of significant withdrawals show that the water-producing zones in the complexly stratified Cretaceous sediments are areally extensive. More importantly, the essentially constant rate of decline in well NC 48, at a distance of 22 miles (35 km) from a location where only 6 mgd (23,000 m3/day) was being pumped, suggests that reductions in natural discharge and increases in recharge were not significantly affecting the water-level response. In accordance with Theis concept, much (if not most) of the withdrawal in the 1960s apparently was continuing to be derived from groundwater storage. Thus, even the relatively small withdrawals of the 1960s may possibly have already exceeded the safe yield of the Cretaceous aquifers.

Basic Considerations
Municipalities, industries, and large agricultural operations that obtain water from the Cretaceous aquifers have become increasingly concerned about the declining water levels. The State Division of Water Resources has recently (August 2002) developed rules designed to reduce withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers. The ultimate objective of these rules is to reduce withdrawals to the safe yield (Anonymous 1998). Determination of the safe yield of the Cretaceous aquifers in the central Coastal Plain of North Carolina can be approached in either, or both, of two ways. First, through regulations, withdrawals can be reduced incrementally until water levels in the Cretaceous aquifers stabilize throughout the central Coastal Plain area. If at that time there is also no landward movement of the freshwater/salt-water interface, the withdrawals at that point will equal the safe yield. Considering the time required for development of alternative supplies, and depending on the size of each incremental reduction, this approach may take a few decades. A second approach, and the purpose of this article, is to analyze existing data to derive, if possible, a preliminary estimate of the yield of the Cretaceous aquifers in the central Coastal Plain area. The value of this approach is that it may provide guidance to the State in its future regulation of withdrawals, and to water managers in planning the development of alternative supplies.

Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

254 Fig. 4 Simplified conceptual diagrams showing A prepumping conditions and B conditions in 1965. Tiny circles in B indicate points of origin of flowlines

An analysis of this type would normally be based on the latest readily available data. However, for practical reasons the authors preferred to utilize only the data from the 1960s. First, this is the period when the declines in the water levels of the Cretaceous aquifers were first recorded, in wells NC 44 and NC 48. Second, the dominant pumping centers at that time were at Kinston and DuPont, which, considering their distances from the observation wells can be treated as a point source. Third, the first known line of precise leveling in the area that can be used to evaluate drainage of water from clay lenses and confining beds, and resulting land subsidence, was made in 1968 (Balazs 1974). Fourth, recent increases both in the number of points of large withdrawals and in the total withdrawals would greatly complicate any analyses based on more recent data. Utilization of data from the 1960s, rather than from a more recent date, is consistent with the philosophy emphasized by LeGrand and Rosen (1998) that all groundwater studies should begin with a thorough conceptual analysis of the data already available, rather than first collecting more data. This is the second point, in addition to safe yield, that is mentioned in the introduction as a topic of emphasis in this article. In the case of the central Coastal Plain, if an analysis of 1960s data indicates that the safe yield had been exceeded at that

time, obviously it is still being exceeded, but only more so. In a safe-yield analysis it is first necessary to identify the sources of the withdrawals. In the case of the confined Cretaceous aquifers in the central Coastal Plain these sources are (1) movement of water (i.e., recharge) across the confining beds from the overlying unconfined aquifers, (2) reductions in natural discharge, (3) release of water from aquifer storage, (4) drainage of water from fine-grained lenses in the aquifers and from the confining beds, and (5) release of water resulting from advance of the saltwater front (i.e., westward retreat of the freshwater front). Each of these factors is shown schematically in Fig. 4 and discussed in the following sections. Relative to Fig. 4, the complex sequences of aquifers and confining beds in the central Coastal Plain area have, for purpose of illustration, been reduced to an unconfined aquifer, one confined aquifer, and two confining beds.

Recharge to the Cretaceous Aquifers

The first attempt to estimate the rate of recharge to the Cretaceous was made by T.M. Robison of the USGS during an investigation of the water resources of northeast North Carolina (Wilder et al. 1978). Using a typical value for the vertical hydraulic conductivity of clay of

Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

255

0.001 gal day ft (4.110 m/day), he calculated a rounded recharge rate of 30,000 gal day1 mi2 (44 m3 day1 km2), where water levels are drawn down to the top of the Cretaceous aquifers. A recharge rate of 30,000 gal day1 mi2 would provide a yield of 75 mgd (284,000 m3/day) in the five-county area. In his analysis, Robison specified that water levels be drawn down to the top of the Cretaceous aquifers, thereby producing the maximum available drawdown. However, this requirement is not actually necessary because hydraulic conductivity is defined in terms of a unit hydraulic gradient. Therefore, if the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Cretaceous confining beds is 0.001 gal day1 ft2 (4.1105 m/day), a recharge rate of 30,000 gal day1 mi2 (44 m3 day1 km2) would occur wherever the difference in heads across the confining beds equals the thickness of the beds (i.e., where a unit vertical hydraulic gradient exists). Where the gradient exceeds a unit value, the recharge rate would presumably exceed 30,000 gal day1 mi2. Drawdowns in the 1960s that were equal to or greater than the thickness of the confining beds occurred only near pumping wells in the Kinston-DuPont area. However, as shown by the records of wells NC 44 and NC 48, drawdowns extended outward from these centers to distances greater than 22 miles toward the east (Figs. 1 and 3). Estimated water levels along a cross section through the area are shown in Fig. 5. The pre-pumping water-level line is based on only a few widely scattered data points. The cone of depression line is based partly on the 1965 map of Nelson and Barksdale (1965, Fig. 9) and partly on data from wells NC 44 and NC 48. The average drawdown along the line of the section is about 20 ft (6 m) and the cone of depression appears to have a diameter of about 40 miles (64 km). The estimated effective thickness of the confining beds along the line of the section is about 60 ft (18 m) (Giese et al. 1997, Fig. 40), or about three times the average drawdown. Assuming that the cone of depression caused by withdrawals at Kinston and DuPont is roughly circular, its area is about 1,300 mi2 (3,400 km2). In order to estimate the recharge to the Cretaceous aquifers in this area, the estimated recharge rate of 30,000 gpd/mi2 must be reduced to one-third or to 10,000 gpd/mi2 (15 m3 day1 km2) because the average drawdown is only one-third the effective thickness of the confining beds. This recharge rate multiplied by the area of 1,300 mi2 gives a total recharge to the Cretaceous aquifers in the area of 13 mgd (49,000 m3/day) or a little over twice the 1965 estimated withdrawals of 6 mgd (23,000 m3/day) at Kinston and DuPont. A recharge rate twice as large as the withdrawals should have caused the cone of depression to stabilize. However, as shown by the continuing essentially straight-line decline of the water levels in wells NC 44 and NC 48, stabilization was not occurring. This suggests that the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the clay confining beds is less than 0.001 gal day1 ft2 (4.1105) and/or that the maximum-

Fig. 5 Land-surface profile along a section through the central Coastal Plain and the prepumping potentiometric surface and cone of depression in the Cretaceous aquifers in 1965

potential recharge rate is substantially less than 30,000 gal day1 mi2 (44 m3 day1 km2). The preceding discussion deals only with recharge. However, as Theis pointed out, reductions in natural discharge caused by withdrawals are also one of the sources of water derived from wells. As recently as the mid 1950s, the floodplains of streams, which occupied about 20% of the Kinston-DuPont area (LeGrand 1960, Fig. 16), were areas of artesian flow for the Cretaceous aquifers and, therefore, were natural discharge areas (Figs. 4 and 5). Drawdowns in the Cretaceous aquifers since the 1950s have caused a change from discharge to recharge conditions for these aquifers in these areas. However, the continuing and relatively straight-line declines in the water levels at wells NC 44 and NC 48 indicate that conversion of the floodplains from discharge areas to recharge areas was having little or no effect on the response of the Cretaceous aquifers to the withdrawals in 1965.

Water Derived from Storage

The sources of water derived from wells include, in addition to recharge and reductions in natural discharge, release of water from aquifer storage. This release can be evaluated, as of 1965, only with the data from wells NC
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

256

44 and NC 48. The average rate of decline cannot be determined from analysis of these two hydrographs. Based on the decline of about 2 ft/year (0.7 m/year) at well NC 44 at a distance of 16 miles (36 km) from the Kinston-DuPont pumping center, an average rate of 3 ft/ year (1 m/year) for the entire cone of depression, or 8103 ft/day (2.6103 m/day), would seem to be a conservative estimate. We realize that the actual decline in the water level at well NC 44 in 1965 was only about 0.1 ft (0.03 m). On the other hand, the decline from June 1966 to June 1968 averaged 2.81 ft/year (0.86 m/year). In spite of the small decline in 1965, calculations are treated as applying to 1965 because that year is midway between the published water-use estimates for 1960 and 1970. In order to estimate the volume of water released from aquifer storage, it is also necessary to estimate the storativity. A 5-day aquifer test on the Cove City wellfield of the City of New Bern gave values of 5104 and 8104 (unpublished data in USGS files). Based on five aquifer tests in the area, Narkunas (1980, , p. 80) determined an average storativity of 2.3104. Based on all these values, an average storativity of 3104 also seems conservative. The release of water from aquifer storage in 1965 in the 1,300-mi2 area, based on the rate of decline and storativity quoted above, is calculated to have been: 1300mi2 5280ft2 0:008ft 0:0003ft3 7:5gal x x x x day ft3 1 mi2 ft2 xft 600; 000 gpdrounded 2; 300 m3 =day The fourth possible source of water mentioned above is water released from storage in clay lenses in the aquifers and from the confining beds. This is an inelastic process that results in permanent compaction of these lenses and beds, and permanent subsidence of the land surface. Figure 6 shows the subsidence of the land surface between 1935 and 1968 as determined by the National Geodetic Survey (NC Division of Water Resources, written communication, 12 August 1999). As shown in the figure, the maximum land subsidence of about 7 inches (18 cm) occurred at Kinston and an average of more than 5 inches (13 cm) occurred from La Grange to Cove City. Five inches of subsidence during the 33 years from 1935 to 1968 gives a rate of subsidence of 0.15 in/year (0.4 cm/ year). The rate of subsidence prior to 1953, when DuPont withdrawals began, was undoubtedly less than 0.15 in/ year, and between 1953 and 1968, was undoubtedly larger than 0.15 in/year. However, such possible differences in the rate cannot be determined because no precise leveling is known between 1935 and 1968. We assume in all calculations below that erosion rates are inconsequential for the period of evaluation. Land-surface subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals is directly related to drawdowns. Because the drawdowns dealt with in this article, those as of 1965, were centered only on the Kinston-DuPont area, the area to which the 0.15 in/year (0.4 cm/year rate should be applied is obviously less than the 1,300 mi2 (3,400-km2
Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

Fig. 6 Profile showing land-surface subsidence between 1935 and 1968. (Adopted from North Carolina Division of Water Resources, written communication, 12 August 1999)

area mentioned above. The area shown in Fig. 6 in which subsidence exceeds 5 inches (13 cm) is about 30 miles (48 km) wide. Assuming that this area is roughly circular, it would encompass an area of about 700 mi2 (1,800 km2). The water released from clay lenses and confining beds in this 700-mi2 area, using a rate of decline of 0.15 in/year (0.4 cm/year), would be: 0:15in ft year 700mi2 5280ft2 7:5gal x x x x x 1 mi2 year 12in 365days ft3 5 mgd 19; 000 m3 =day The subsidence of the land surface involved in this calculation includes, of course, subsidence resulting from release of water from aquifer storage. In the 700-mi2 (1,800-km2) area this storage would amount to about 350,000 gpd (1,300 m3/day), which when subtracted from the 5 mgd (19,000 m3/day) leaves a rounded value of 4.6 mgd (17,400 m3/day). It is important to note here that the 350,000 gpd is included in the 600,000 gpd discussed above. Storativity, as such, is not included in the above equation. Instead, the rate at which the pore space decreases, 0.15 in/year, is used to calculate the volume of water released from storage in both the aquifers and confining beds. Summing the water released from storage in the aquifers (600,000 gpd) and that released from the finegrained beds (4,600,000 gpd) gives a total of 5.2 mgd (19,700 m3/day) derived from storage in the aquifers and confining beds. This amounts to about 86% of the

DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

257

estimated 1965 withdrawals at Kinston-DuPont of 6 mgd (23,000 m3/day). An area of 1,300 mi2 (3,400 km2) was used in calculating recharge and the release of water from aquifer storage. On the other hand, an area of only 700 mi2 (1,800 km2) was used in calculating the volume of water released from clay lenses in the aquifers and from the confining beds. There are two reasons for using these different areas. First, because of the very small hydraulic conductivity of these layers, there is a long delay (up to years) between the decline of water levels in aquifers and the release of the water from storage in fine-grained layers. Second, in areas like the Atlantic Coastal Plain, where subsidence is measured in inches, in contrast to California and other areas where it may be measured in feet, the possibility of small errors, even in precise leveling, must be recognized. Thus, if the average of 5 inches (13 cm) of subsidence between La Grange and Cove City indicated in Fig. 6 had been applied to the entire 1,300-mi2 (3,400-km2) area, as might have been done, the release of water from the fine-grained layers would have been: 0:15in ft year 1300mi2 5280ft2 7:5gal x x x x x year 12in 365days ft3 1 mi2 9; 000; 000 gpd 34; 000 m3 =day This calculated value nearly equals the estimated total 1965 withdrawals from the entire five-county area of 10 mgd (38,000 m3/day). This suggests that (1) there is no significant recharge across the confining beds and all the withdrawals were being derived entirely from aquifer and confining bed storage, or (2) the area in which release of water from fine-grained layers occurred is much less than 1,300 mi2 (3,400 km2), or (3) the land-surface subsidence of 5 inches (13 cm) is too large. Of these, we suggest that the second is most likely the correct one and thus supports use of the area of 700 mi2 (1,800 km2). In the earlier discussion of recharge and drawdowns, it was shown that a maximum-potential recharge rate of 30,000 gpd/mi2 (44 m3 day1 km2) should have resulted by 1965 in recharge that was twice the withdrawal rate of 6 mgd (23,000 m3/day) in the Kinston-DuPont area. On the other hand, the preceding calculations suggest that more than three-fourths of the 6 mgd was being derived from storage in the aquifers and fine-grained layers. The remaining 0.8 mgd (3,000 m3/day) was presumably being derived from recharge which, averaged over 1,300 mi2 (3,400 km2), amounted to about 600 gal day1 mi2 (1 m3 day1 km2). Therefore, remembering that drawdowns were only about one-third the thickness of the confining beds, it appears from these calculations that the maximum-potential recharge is only about 1/15 of 30,000 gal day1 mi2 (44 m3 day1 km2), or 2,000 gal day1 mi2 (6003 rounded to 2,000) (3 m3 day1 km2). This reduces the safe yield of the Cretaceous aquifers in the Central Coastal Plain from the 75 mgd (284,000 m3/day) calculated above, based on

Robisons estimated recharge rate, to less than 5 mgd (19,000 m3/day).

Release of Water Along the Salt-Water Front

The fifth source of water derived from wells was the release of fresh water resulting from advance of the saltwater front. The approximate position of the salt-water front at the base of the Black Creek aquifer, as defined by water containing more than 250 mg/l of chloride and as shown in Fig. 2, was near well NC 48. Based on Figs. 2 and 5, it appears that drawdowns resulting from the Kinston-DuPont withdrawals were occurring to the east of the salt-water front by 1965. However, it is doubtful that the drawdowns then were sufficient to produce a gradient towards the west in the salt-water zone. Therefore, it is also doubtful that any of the withdrawals in 1965 were being derived from storage by a westward movement of the salt-water front. This has surely not been the case, however, since withdrawals began at the New Bern wellfield at Cove City in 1968, with the result that we now contend that lateral salt-water intrusion is occurring.

Concluding Thoughts
It appears from the preceding analysis that the safe yield of the Cretaceous aquifers was already exceeded in the Kinston-DuPont area by 1965, when more than threefourths of the withdrawals were being derived from storage. The depletion of aquifer storage is elastic and will readily be replaced if water levels are allowed to return to their pre-pumping levels. Depletion of storage in the fine-grained layers, on the other hand, is essentially irreplaceable and is therefore a permanent loss. Another unavoidable aspect of this depletion is the compaction of the confining beds, which results in a decrease in their water-transmitting capacity. As a consequence, this results in a reduction in the rate of recharge to the aquifers and a further reduction in their safe yield. Thus it appears that the hydraulic conductivity of confining bed materials in the Cretaceous system of the central Coastal Plain is at least one to two orders of magnitude lower than Robisons original estimate, in part due to initial overestimation, but more likely due to significant compaction associated with overdevelopment. Another important topic of concern is advance of the salt-water front; commonly referred to as salt-water encroachment. It does not appear that this was occurring in 1965. However, New Berns wellfield at Cove City was located only about 5 miles (8 km) west of the front and it is likely that the start of withdrawals there in 1968 resulted in a reversal in the hydraulic gradient in the saltwater zone. As a result, it is likely that the front has been advancing since about 1968. Because such advance represents an essentially permanent decrease in freshwater storage, it is important that future studies be made to determine the rate of advance.
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4

Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

258

A back of the envelope analysis such as the one contained in this article, and based only on data available in the 1960s, does not permit precise determination of either the maximum potential recharge rate or the safe yield of the Cretaceous aquifers in the central Coastal Plain area of North Carolina. It does show, however, that efforts to reduce withdrawals from the Cretaceous aquifers are long overdue. An analysis like this is important also to the groundwater profession by showing the value of early conceptual analyses, even when based on meager data.
Acknowledgments The authors appreciate reviews provided by Harry LeGrand, Ted Mew, Charles Daniel, Perry Olcott, Joe Rosenshein, Frank Trainer, Warren Wood, and one anonymous reviewer.

References
Alley WM, Reilly TE, Franke OL (1999) Sustainability of groundwater resources. US Geol Surv Circ 1186 Anonymous (1998) Central Coastal Plain capacity-use investigation report. North Carolina Division of Water Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina Balazs EI (1974) Vertical crustal movements on the middle Atlantic Coastal Plain as indicated by precise leveling. In: Proc Geol Soc Am, Northeastern Sect Meeting, Baltimore, 20 23 March Eimers JL, Lyke WL, Brockman AR (1990) Simulation of groundwater flow in Cretaceous rocks in the central Coastal Plain, North Carolina. US Geol Surv Water-Resour Invest Rep 894153 Fetter CW (1988) Applied hydrogeology. Merrill, Columbus

Giese GL, Eimers JL, Coble RW (1997) Simulation of groundwater flow in the Coastal Plain Aquifer System of North Carolina. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1404-M LeGrand HE (1960) Geology and groundwater resources of Wilmington-New Bern area. N C Dep Water Resour Groundwater Bull 1 LeGrand HE, Rosen L (1998) Putting hydrogeologic site studies on track (editorial). Ground Water MarchApril, p 193 Lohman SW (1979) Groundwater hydraulics. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 708 Narkunas J (1980) Groundwater evaluation in the central Coastal Plain of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, North Carolina Nelson PF, Barksdale RG (1965) Interim report on the groundwater resources of the Kinston area, North Carolina. N C Dep Water Resour Groundwater Circ 10 Terziotti S, Schrader TP, Treece MW Jr (1994) Estimated water use, by county, in North Carolina. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 94522 Theis CV (1940) The source of water derived from wells. Civil Eng 10(5):277280 Wilder HB, Robison TM, Lindskov KL (1978) Water resources of northeast North Carolina. US Geol Survey Water Resour Invest 7781 Winner MD Jr, Coble RW (1996) Hydrogeologic framework of the North Carolina Coastal Plain. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1404-I Winner MD Jr, Lyke WL (1986) History of groundwater pumpage and water-level decline in the Black Creek and Upper Cape Fear aquifers of the central Coastal Plain of North Carolina. US Geol Surv Water Resour Invest Rep 864186 Winner MD Jr, Lyke WL (1989) Aquifers in Cretaceous rocks of the central Coastal Plain of North Carolina. US Geol Surv Water-Resour Invest Rep 874178 Wood WW (2001) Water sustainability science or management (editorial). Groundwater SeptOct

Hydrogeology Journal (2003) 11:249258

DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0242-4