SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Publication”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 775 records · Page 43Linked to original sources

USGS2011

Overview of the ARkStorm scenario

The U.S. Geological Survey, Multi Hazards Demonstration Project (MHDP) uses hazards science to improve resiliency of communities to natural disasters including earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, landslides, floods and coastal erosion. The project engages emergency planners, businesses, universities, government agencies, and others in preparing for major natural disasters. The project also helps to set research goals and provides decision-making information for loss reduction and improved resiliency. The first public product of the MHDP was the ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario published in May 2008. This detailed depiction of a hypothetical magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in southern California served as the centerpiece of the largest earthquake drill in United States history, involving over 5,000 emergency responders and the participation of over 5.5 million citizens. This document summarizes the next major public project for MHDP, a winter storm scenario called ARkStorm (for Atmospheric River 1,000). Experts have designed a large, scientifically realistic meteorological event followed by an examination of the secondary hazards (for example, landslides and flooding), physical damages to the built environment, and social and economic consequences. The hypothetical storm depicted here would strike the U.S. West Coast and be similar to the intense California winter storms of 1861 and 1862 that left the central valley of California impassible. The storm is estimated to produce precipitation that in many places exceeds levels only experienced on average once every 500 to 1,000 years. Extensive flooding results. In many cases flooding overwhelms the state’s flood-protection system, which is typically designed to resist 100- to 200-year runoffs. The Central Valley experiences hypothetical flooding 300 miles long and 20 or more miles wide. Serious flooding also occurs in Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay area, and other coastal communities. Windspeeds in some places reach 125 miles per hour, hurricane-force winds. Across wider areas of the state, winds reach 60 miles per hour. Hundreds of landslides damage roads, highways, and homes. Property damage exceeds $ 300 billion, most from flooding. Demand surge (an increase in labor rates and other repair costs after major natural disasters) could increase property losses by 20 percent. Agricultural losses and other costs to repair lifelines, dewater (drain) flooded islands, and repair damage from landslides, brings the total direct property loss to nearly $ 400 billion, of which $ 20 to $ 30 billion would be recoverable through public and commercial insurance. Power, water, sewer, and other lifelines experience damage that takes weeks or months to restore. Flooding evacuation could involve 1.5 million residents in the inland region and delta counties. Business interruption costs reach $ 325 billion in addition to the $ 400 billion property repair costs, meaning that an ARkStorm could cost on the order of $ 725 billion, which is nearly 3 times the loss deemed to be realistic by the ShakeOut authors for a severe southern California earthquake, an event with roughly the same annual occurrence probability. The ARkStorm has several public policy implications: (1) An ARkStorm raises serious questions about the ability of existing federal, state, and local disaster planning to handle a disaster of this magnitude. (2) A core policy issue raised is whether to pay now to mitigate, or pay a lot more later for recovery. (3) Innovative financing solutions are likely to be needed to avoid fiscal crisis and adequately fund response and recovery costs from a similar, real, disaster. (4) Responders and government managers at all levels could be encouraged to conduct risk assessments, and devise the full spectrum of exercises, to exercise ability of their plans to address a similar event. (5) ARkStorm can be a reference point for application of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Emergency Management Agency guidance connecting federal, state and local natural hazards mapping and mitigation planning under the National Flood Insurance Plan and Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. (6) Common messages to educate the public about the risk of such an extreme disaster as the ARkStorm scenario could be developed and consistently communicated to facilitate policy formulation and transformation. These impacts were estimated by a team of 117 scientists, engineers, public-policy experts, insurance experts, and employees of the affected lifelines. In many aspects the ARkStorm produced new science, such as the model of coastal inundation. The products of the ARkStorm are intended for use by emergency planners, utility operators, policymakers, and others to inform preparedness plans and to enhance resiliency.

California↗

USGS2015

Water withdrawals in Florida, 2012

In 2012, the total amount of water withdrawn in Florida was estimated to be 14,237 million gallons per day (Mgal/d). Saline water accounted for 7,855 Mgal/d (55 percent), and freshwater accounted for 6,383 Mgal/d (45 percent). Groundwater accounted for 4,167 Mgal/d (65 percent) of freshwater withdrawals, and surface water accounted for the remaining 2,216 Mgal/d (35 percent). Surface water accounted for nearly all (99.9 percent) saline-water withdrawals. Freshwater withdrawals were greatest in Palm Beach County (682 Mgal/d), and saline-water withdrawals were greatest in Pasco County (1,822 Mgal/d). Fresh groundwater provided drinking water (through either public supply or private domestic wells) for 17.699 million residents (93 percent of Florida’s population), and fresh surface water provided drinking water for 1.375 million residents (7 percent). The statewide public-supply gross per capita water use for 2012 was estimated at 136 gallons per day. Overall, agricultural self-supplied accounted for 39 percent of the total freshwater withdrawals (groundwater and surface water), followed by public supply (36 percent). Public supply accounted for 49 percent of groundwater withdrawals, followed by agricultural self-supplied (34 percent), commercial-industrial-mining self-supplied (7 percent), recreational-landscape irrigation and domestic self-supplied (5 percent each), and power generation (less than 1 percent). Agricultural self-supplied accounted for 50 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals, followed by power generation (26 percent), public supply (11 percent), recreational-landscape irrigation (9 percent), and commercial-industrial-mining self-supplied (4 percent). Power generation accounted for nearly all (99.8 percent) saline-water withdrawals. The largest percentage of freshwater withdrawals was from the South Florida Water Management District (46 percent), followed by the St. Johns River Water Management District (20 percent), Southwest Florida Water Management District (19 percent), Northwest Florida Water Management District (9 percent), and Suwannee River Water Management District (6 percent). The South Florida Water Management District accounted for the largest percentage of freshwater withdrawals for public-supply use (46 percent), commercial-industrial-mining self-supplied use (24 percent), agricultural self-supplied use (59 percent), and recreational-landscape irrigation use (63 percent). The Northwest Florida Water Management District accounted for the largest percentage of freshwater withdrawals for power-generation use (44 percent), and the Southwest Florida Water Management District accounted for the largest percentage of saline-water withdrawals for power-generation use (58 percent).

Florida↗

USGS2017

Guidelines for preparation of State water-use estimates for 2015

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated the use of water in the United States at 5-year intervals since 1950. This report describes the water-use categories and data elements used for the national water-use compilation conducted as part of the USGS National Water-Use Science Project. The report identifies sources of water-use information, provides standard methods and techniques for estimating water use at the county level, and outlines steps for preparing documentation for the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As part of this USGS program to document water use on a national scale, estimates of water withdrawals for the categories of public supply, self-supplied domestic, industrial, irrigation, and thermoelectric power are prepared for each county in each State, District, or territory by using the guidelines in this report. County estimates of water withdrawals for aquaculture, livestock, and mining are prepared for each State by using a county-based national model, although water-use programs in each State or Water Science Center have the option of producing independent county estimates of water withdrawals for these categories. Estimates of water withdrawals and consumptive use for thermoelectric power will be aggregated to the county level for each State by the national project; additionally, irrigation consumptive use at the county level will also be provided, although study chiefs in each State have the option of producing independent county estimates of water withdrawals and consumptive use for these categories. Estimates of deliveries of water from public supplies for domestic use by county also will be prepared for each State. As a result, total domestic water use can be determined for each State by combining self-supplied domestic withdrawals and public-supplied domestic deliveries. Fresh groundwater and surface-water estimates will be prepared for all categories of use, and saline groundwater and surface-water estimates by county will be prepared for the categories of public supply, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power. Power production for thermoelectric power and irrigated acres by irrigation system type will be compiled. If data are available, reclaimed-wastewater use will be compiled for the public-supply, industrial, mining, thermoelectric-power, and irrigation categories. Optional water-use categories are commercial, hydroelectric power, and wastewater treatment. Optional data elements are public-supply deliveries to commercial, industrial, and thermoelectric-power users; consumptive use (for categories other than thermoelectric power and irrigation); irrigation conveyance loss; and number of facilities. Aggregation of water-use data by stream basin (eight-digit hydrologic unit code) and principal aquifers also is optional. Water-use data compiled by the States will be stored in the USGS Aggregate Water-Use Data System (AWUDS). This database is a comprehensive aggregated database designed to store mandatory and optional data elements. AWUDS contains several routines that can be used for quality assurance and quality control of the data, and AWUDS produces tables of water-use data from the previous compilations.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2022

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on pygmy rabbits published from 1990 to 2020

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is creating a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate the integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here to frame the presentation. Sagebrush ecosystems throughout North America face management challenges including habitat loss and fragmentation. Brachylagus idahoensis (pygmy rabbits) are a sagebrush-obligate species that has experienced population declines and range contraction in recent decades. A disjunct population of pygmy rabbits in the Columbia Basin in Washington was listed as federally endangered in 2003. Due to their specialized habitat requirements and low dispersal ability, pygmy rabbits are a high priority for managers throughout their range. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Forest Service General Technical Reports and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports) on pygmy rabbits published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2020. We first conducted a structured search of three reference databases and three government databases using the phrase “pygmy rabbit” or “ Brachylagus idahoensis .” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) products not written in English, (3) publications that were not focused on North America, (4) publications that were not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (5) products for which pygmy rabbits were not a research focus or for which the study did not present new data or findings about pygmy rabbits. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified the management topics (for example, captive breeding, habitat characteristics, and population estimates) addressed by each product. We also noted which publications included new publicly available geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included an initial internal colleague review of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and a formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 2,285 total products, of which 105 met our criteria for inclusion. Sensitive/rare wildlife, behavior or demographics, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat selection, and effects distances or spatial scale were the management topics most commonly addressed. The online version of this bibliography, Science for Resource Managers, will be searchable by topic, location, and year; it will include links to each original publication, where available. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and associated native species across the western United States.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗

USGS1998

Water use trends and demand projections in the Northwest Florida Water Management District

The Northwest Florida Water Management District is located in the western panhandle of Florida and encompasses about 11,200 square miles. In 1995, the District had an estimated population of 1.13 million, an increase of about 47 percent from the 1975 population of 0.77 million. Over 50 percent of the resident population lives within 10 miles of the coast. In addition, hundreds of thousands of visitors come to the coastal areas of the panhandle during the summer months for recreation or vacation purposes. Water withdrawn to meet demands for public supply, domestic self-supplied, commercial-industrial, agricultural irrigation, and recreational irrigation purposes in the District increased 18 percent (52 million gallons per day) between 1970 and 1995. The greatest increases were for public supply and domestic self-supplied (99 percent increase) and for agricultural irrigation (60 percent increase) between 1970 and 1995. In 1995, approximately 70 percent of the water withdrawn was from ground-water sources, with the majority of this from the Floridan aquifer system. The increasing water demands have affected water levels in the Floridan aquifer system, especially along the coastal areas. The Northwest Florida Water Management District is mandated under the Florida Statutes (Chapter 373) to protect and manage the water resources in this area of the State. The mandate requires that current and future water demands be met, while water resources and water-dependent natural systems are sustained. For this project, curve fitting and extrapolation were used to project most of the variables (population, population served by public supply, and water use) to the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. This mathematical method involves fitting a curve to historical population or water-use data and then extending this curve to arrive at future values. The population within the region is projected to reach 1,596,888 by the year 2020, an increase of 41 percent between 1995 and 2020. Most of the population in this region will continue to reside in the urban areas of Pensacola and Tallahassee, and along the coastal areas. The population served by public water supply is projected to reach 1,353,836 by the year 2020, an increase of nearly 46 percent between 1995 and 2020. Total water demand for the Northwest Florida Water Management District is projected to reach 940.2 million gallons per day in 2000, 1,003.1 million gallons per day in 2010, and 1,059.1 million gallons per day in 2020. Excluding water withdrawn for power generation from these totals, water demands will increase 34 percent between 1995 and 2020, and 58 percent between 1970 and 2020. Specifically, public supply demands are projected to increase 74.1 million gallons per day (53 percent) and domestic self-supplied and small public supply systems demands are projected to increase 9.1 million gallons per day (28 percent) between 1995 and 2020. Commercial- industrial self-supplied demands are projected to increase about 16.9 million gallons per day (13 percent) between 1995 and 2020. Agricultural and recreational irrigation demands combined are projected to increase 16.8 million gallons per day (48 percent) between 1995 and 2020. Water demands for power generation are projected to increase about 53.9 million gallons per day (10 percent) between 1995 and 2020. Although power generation water use shows a projected increase during this time, plant capacities are not expected to change dramatically.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1906

The geography and geology of Alaska; a summary of existing knowledge, with a section on climate, and a topographic map and description thereof

Alaska, the largest outlying possession of the United States, is that great land mass forming the northwestern extremity of the North American continent, whose western point is within 60 miles of the Asiatic coast (PI. II). About one-quarter of this area lies within the Arctic Circle, and from the standpoint of geographic position must be regarded as an arctic province; but the southern seaboard, exposed to the warm winds and waters of the Pacific, gives to the entire southern portion of the territory" a comparatively warm climate. It is not generally realized that the range of climate in Alaska is greater than that between Florida and Maine. At the southernmost point of the Pacific coast the mean annual temperature is not far from that of the city of Washington, the winters being warmer and characterized by less snowfall; the Yukon Valley on the other hand has a winter climate similar to that of northern Montana and Dakota; while in the extreme northern part of the territory the meteorologic conditions are invariably arctic. Though as yet only sparsely settled, Alaska's vast area and great resources make it one of the most important possessions of the United States and promise its rapid development. During the years 1890 to 1900 the population increased from 32,052* to 63,592. The mineral output, which in 1890 was valued at less than $800,000, exceeded $9,000,000 in 1904, and the fisheries show a corresponding growth. This rapid development has attracted public attention and led to urgent demand for explorations, surveys, and other investigations. So actively has this work been pushed, both by public and private enterprise, that exact knowledge of the geography, geology, and mineral resources of the interior has made greater strides within the last eight years than during the preceding thirty-one years since the acquisition of Alaska. The facts regarding the geography and geology, scattered as they are through the many books and reports of this period, are not always readily accessible, and the time seems ripe to present them in a summarized form. The topography of Alaska is varied and complex (see PI. I), and it is not easy to present briefly even the salient features. The limited number of pages here devoted to the subject precludes the possibility of detailed treatment, even if the facts were available. Much of the description has been taken from the results attained by other investigators, the writer being personally familiar with only a part of this large province. A list of the publications consulted is appended. The larger geographic features of Alaska are now fairly well known, though the detailed surveys which are demanded by the development of many localities have hardly been begun. Preliminary surveys have been completed of all but three 8 of the larger rivers. The most important mountain ranges have been at least outlined (fig. 3). Only three large areas remain almost entirely unmapped: One in southwestern Alaska, between Cook Inlet and the lower Kuskokwim, and the others in northern Alaska, embracing the Arctic watershed east and west of the Colville River. Nearly all the surveys of the interior, however, have been of a preliminary and exploratory character, and to meet the requirements of exact geography must be followed by more detailed mensuration. Though the coast line has been fairly well known for more than half a century, knowledge of the interior has been gained chiefly within the last two decades. This has not yet found its way into text-books and has too often been entirely ignored by cartographers. If facts are presented which may seem elementary, it is because even well-informed people have been known to harbor misconceptions in regard to the orographic features, climate, and general character of Alaska. Those who read of the perils and privations of winter travel and explorations are apt to picture a region of ice and snow; others, again, who have personal knowledge of the tourist route of southeastern Alaska, regard the whole district as one of rugged mountains and glaciers. In point of fact, glaciers are now nearly limited to the ranges bordering the Pacific and to the two slopes of the Alaska range; and even during the greatest development of glaciers but a small portion of Alaska was under ice (see map, PI. XXII). As a treatise on geography would hardly be complete without some discussion of the climate, meteorologic data have been compiled by Mr. Cleveland Abbe, jr., but the discussion of this does not pretend to be more than a cursory treatment of the subject. The scope of the paper seems to require also a brief summary of the development of geographic knowledge of Alaska. This subject, with its many ramifications, is of fascinating interest and offers a magnificent field for the trained historian. If the accompanying sketch of discovery and exploration awakens any measure of popular interest the writer will feel amply rewarded for having attacked a theme which hardly falls within the scope of his investigations. When this compilation was begun it was intended to be chiefly a description of the topography of Alaska, as illustrated by the accompanying map (PI. XXXIV, in pocket), which was compiled under the direction of the late R. U. Goode. In the course of the work there accumulated much geologic as well as geographic material which seemed worthy of inclusion in the report. As no comprehensive statement of the geology of Alaska has been made since the modern epoch of investigation was begun, an attempt will be made to give a summary of all results achieved. Since the writer has obtained much of his knowledge of the facts from the work of others, he disclaims any pretense of making an entirely original contribution to geologic science. He feels, however, that a personal familiarity with a considerable part of the province, gained during seven consecutive seasons of field work, will justify Mm in presenting conclusions which may in some cases be at variance with those in the reports on which he must draw for his facts. Throughout this report attempt will be made to credit borrowed material to the source from which it is drawn. Where such matter has been obtained entirely from published reports there is no difficulty in so doing; but as regards investigators of the Geological Survey, with whom the writer has collaborated both in field and in office, the case is somewhat different, for it is not always possible to know whether this or that theory originated with the writer or with one of his colleagues. It will, then, perhaps suffice to state that this report could not have been prepared without the explorations and researches of the geologists, F. C. Schrader, Walter C. Mendenhall, Arthur J. Collier, J. E. Spurr, and Arthur C. Spencer; and the surveys of the topographers, T. G. Gerdine, D. C. Witherspoon, D. L. Reaburn, W. J. Peters, and E. C. Barnard. Each of these men, in the course of from two to six years of field work, has made important contributions to the knowledge of the geography and geology of Alaska, and not all of these results have yet been put in print. In the last season (1903) L. M. Prindle, C. W. Wright, Arthur Hollick, G. C. Martin, F. L. Hess, and Fred H. Moffit have carried on geologic work in Alaska, and the writer has made use of their work now in course of publication. He has also been fortunate in having access to the manuscript reports of Walter C. Mendenhall and F. C. Schrader on the Copper River basin, to which references will be made. The matter here presented should be credited in a measure to all of these investigators, but for many of the theories advanced the writer alone is responsible. As this manuscript goes to press there has been opportunity to incorporate some of the results of the field work of 1904. As far as possible these have been embodied in the text, but in some instances it has been found advisable to add them only as footnotes. During the past summer F. E. and C. W. Wright extended the geologic reconnaissance in southeastern Alaska. In southwestern Alaska G. C. Martin and T. W. Stanton have determined the general Mesozoic section, while F. H. Moffit has made a reconnaissance of the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula. A. J. Collier has mapped the geology of the Cape Lisburne region, and L. M. Prindle and F. L. Hess have made contributions to the knowledge of the metamorphic terranes of the Yukon-Tanana district. It is the writer's purpose to describe in nontechnical language the larger geographic features and discuss their relation as far as the data available will permit. In the treatment of the geology, however, less effort will be made to make the matter acceptable to the lay reader. It is hoped, however, that a brief summary of the salient features of the geologic history' may be not without interest to the general public. If this paper serves in some measure to dispel the popular fallacies regarding Alaska and to disseminate more accurate knowledge of its geographic and geologic features, the purpose of its publication will be accomplished.

Alaska↗

USGS2010

Estimated Withdrawals and Other Elements of Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin of the United States in 2005

Estimates of water withdrawals in the United States part of the Great Lakes Basin and 107 of its watersheds designated by the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUCs) indicate that about 30.3 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) were withdrawn for practically all categories of use in 2005. Virtually all water withdrawn was freshwater. Surface-water withdrawals totaled 28.8 Bgal/d, or 95 percent of total withdrawals; about 24 Bgal/d was withdrawn from the Great Lakes or their connecting channels. Total withdrawals, and total surface-water withdrawals, decreased 7 percent from 1995 to 2005, generally following the withdrawal trends of industrial use and that of the largest use-thermoelectric power. Groundwater withdrawals increased 3 percent from 1995 to 2005 and 33 percent during 1985-2005. The substantial increase since 1985 results primarily from increases in irrigation and self-supplied domestic withdrawals. In 2005, withdrawals for public supply, domestic, and irrigation use accounted for 81 percent of groundwater withdrawals. About 21.9 Bgal/d, or 72 percent of total withdrawals for 2005, was used for thermoelectric power. Virtually all of this water was derived from surface water and used for once-through cooling at powerplants. As such, the reuse potential of this water in the basin is high, with the majority of the withdrawn water returned to its surface-water source. Public-supply withdrawals were 3.81 Bgal/d (13 percent), with withdrawals declining by about 13 percent from 1995 to 2005. In 2005, about 77 percent of the population in the Great Lakes Basin obtained drinking water from public suppliers, compared to about 78 percent in 1995 and 83 percent in 1985. Surface water consistently provided about 88 percent of the total withdrawals for public supply since 1985. Self-supplied industrial withdrawals in 2005 totaled 2.93 Bgal/d (10 percent), possibly as much as 30 percent less than in 1995. Surface water was the source for 95 percent of industrial withdrawals. Combined withdrawals for mining, irrigation, domestic, aquaculture, and livestock use (in order of decreasing rate) were 1.63 Bgal/d, or only 5 percent of total withdrawals; the withdrawals were distributed almost equally between surface-water and groundwater sources. Withdrawals for each of these uses, except livestock, increased almost continuously during 1985-2005. Withdrawals for mining increased 103 percent and for irrigation 94 percent during 1985-2005; livestock withdrawals decreased 25 percent from their peak in 1990. The number of irrigated acres increased 56 percent since 1985, totaling 750,000 acres in 2005. No use of reclaimed wastewater for industrial or irrigation applications was reported; however, sources of information regarding its use were sparse. Within the basin, the Lake Michigan watershed accounted for 15.0 Bgal/d, or 49 percent, of total water withdrawals for 2005; an estimated 12.3 Bgal/d was withdrawn directly from Lake Michigan. The State of Michigan accounted for 38 percent of total water withdrawals, representing the largest surface-water withdrawals (primarily for thermoelectric power use) and groundwater withdrawals (primarily for public supply and self-supplied domestic use). A disproportionately large percentage of surface-water withdrawals (6 percent, 1.80 Bgal/d) were in Illinois, given this state represents less than 1 percent of the land area of the basin. Ninety percent of the Illinois population served by the water withdrawn from Lake Michigan for public supply resides outside the basin. Within land-based HUCs, the Lower Maumee (04100009) of Ohio accounted for the largest total withdrawal and total surface-water withdrawal (about 0.75 Bgal/d). The St. Joseph (04050001) of Michigan and Indiana accounted for the largest total groundwater withdrawal (0.25 Bgal/d).

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2018

Estimates of water use and trends in the Colorado River Basin, Southwestern United States, 1985–2010

The Colorado River Basin (CRB) drains 246,000 square miles and includes parts of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and all of Arizona (Basin States). This report contains water-use estimates by category of use for drainage basins (Hydrologic Unit Code 8; HUC‑8) within the CRB from 1985 to 2010, at 5-year intervals. Estimates for public supply, domestic, commercial, industrial, irrigation, livestock, mining, aquaculture, hydroelectric and thermoelectric power, and wastewater returns are tabulated as (1) water withdrawals from groundwater or surface‑water sources of fresh or saline quality, (2) water delivered for domestic use, (3) wastewater returns and instream use (hydroelectric), and (4) consumptive use, or water that is consumed (USGS definition) and not available for immediate reuse. Water transported outside of the CRB (interbasin transfers) is not included as part of withdrawals and are not accounted for in any category of use within the CRB. Total withdrawals in the CRB (excluding interbasin transfers) averaged about 17 million acre-feet (maf) from 1985 to 2010, peaked at about 17.76 maf in 2000, and reached their lowest levels of 16.43 maf in 1990. Interbasin transfers to serve mostly public-supply and irrigation needs outside of the CRB are reported for 2000, 2005, and 2010 only, and averaged 5.40 maf. More surface water was used in the CRB than groundwater, averaging about 78 percent of total withdrawals, and its use increased less than 2 percent from 1985 to 2010, while groundwater withdrawals decreased about 12 percent. From 1985 to 2010, surface water averaged 98 percent of withdrawals in the upper CRB, and about 59 percent in the lower CRB. Nearly all withdrawals were freshwater, but some saline groundwater was used for mining and self-supplied industrial. Interbasin transfers have a large effect on flows in the Colorado River and are listed in this report separately with no explanation of how the water is used outside of the CRB. There are 34 interbasin transfers that conveyed an estimated 5.83, 5.20, and 5.18 maf out of the CRB in 2000, 2005, and 2010, respectively. The largest interbasin transfers are in the lower CRB and convey surface water (Colorado River water) to southern California; these accounted for 80 to 84 percent of total interbasin transfers in the CRB from 2000 to 2010. Intrabasin transfers are conveyances of surface water that cross drainage basin or State boundaries in the CRB, but the water does not leave the CRB. There are many intrabasin transfers in the CRB, but this report lists 11 that are mostly in the State of Colorado. The largest is the Central Arizona Project (CAP), through which more than 1.00 maf of water was provided to irrigate nearly 1 million acres in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima Counties, as well as provide municipal water for Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, during 2000, 2005, and 2010. In 2010, interbasin and intrabasin transfers accounted for 24 and 11 percent of the total water withdrawals in CRB, respectively, with the larger volumes being conveyed out of the lower CRB. Total population in the CRB increased from 4.56 to 9.44 million people from 1985 to 2010. Most of those people were in the lower CRB, with 86 percent of the total in 1985, and 90 percent of the total in 2010. Total public-supply withdrawals in the CRB provided most people with their potable water, and averaged about 1.63 maf from 1985 to 2010, ranging from about 1.07 maf in 1985 to about 2.10 maf in 2010, when it peaked. Most of public-supply withdrawals occurred in the lower CRB, ranging from 87 to 91 percent of total public-supply withdrawals in the CRB over the 25 years. Total domestic use, comprised of public-supply deliveries and self-supply domestic withdrawals, increased more than 90 percent from 1985 to 2010, from about 0.80 maf to about 1.54 maf. Domestic daily per-capita use rates in the CRB ranged from about 144 (1985) to about 121 (2000) gallons (gal) per ‑ capita between 1985 and 2010. When comparing domestic daily per-capita rates for the upper and lower CRB, people in the lower CRB, on average, used less water for domestic purposes at 128 gal per-capita daily (1985–2010), while those in the upper CRB for the same time period averaged 133 gal per-capita daily. The trend in daily per-capita use rates for the entire CRB fluctuated between the reporting years, but decreased overall, indicating that more people used less water in 2010 than in 1985, likely due to improved infrastructure, conservation, and improvements to water using appliances in homes and businesses. Irrigation accounted for most total withdrawals in the CRB, excluding instream use for hydroelectric power and interbasin transfers, averaging 85 percent from 1985 to 2010. Far more surface water than groundwater was used for irrigation in both the upper and lower CRB, but in the upper CRB, it accounted for an average of more than 98 percent of the total withdrawals (1985–2010), whereas in the lower CRB, surface-water withdrawals for irrigation averaged 61 percent of total withdrawals. On average, the upper CRB accounted for 56 percent of total irrigated acres, and the irrigation systems in the upper CRB trended towards more efficient sprinkler systems from 1985 to 2010. Long-term drought in the CRB substantially decreased the amount of streamflow available for irrigation. Increases in micro-irrigation acres, which can have efficiencies that exceed 90 percent and require 20–50 percent less water than sprinkler systems, likely contributed to reduced withdrawals in the lower CRB. For thermoelectric power, total withdrawals, including the use of reclaimed wastewater, were greater in the upper CRB from 1985 through 2005. In 2010, the lower CRB exceeded the upper by only 11,000 acre-feet. On average, thermoelectric consumptive use accounted for about 80 percent of the total withdrawals; however, consumptive-use data in the upper CRB was incomplete. Surface water was the primary source in the upper CRB and groundwater was the primary source in the lower CRB. In the CRB overall, water withdrawals for thermoelectric generation has decreased since 2000, except for groundwater withdrawals in the lower CRB. Power generation at thermoelectric plants was greater in the upper CRB from 1985 to 2000, and after 2005 the difference in power generation was small; however, the upper CRB continued to have more power generation. In both the upper and lower CRB, power generation increased from 1985 to 2005.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗

USGS1976

Summary of geology and ground-water resources of Passaic County, New Jersey

Ground water in Passaic County occurs in intergranular openings of unconsolidated stratified deposits of Quaternary age and in joints and fractures in consolidated rocks of Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Triassic age. The Brunswick Formation of Triassic age is the most important aquifer in the southeastern one-third of Passaic County. Reported yields of public supply and industrial wells range from 50 to 510 gallons per minute (3 to 32 litres per second) and the median yield is 130 gallons per minute (8 litres per second). Most of these wells are 200 to 400 feet (61 to 122 metres) deep. The median yield of all public supply and industrial wells over 300 feet (91 metres) deep and 8 inches (203 millimetres) or larger in diameter is 230 gallons per minute (15 litres per second). Crystalline rocks of Precambrian age are the major source of ground water for domestic use in the northwestern two-thirds of Passaic County. Reported well yields range from 1 to 200 gallons per minute (.06 to 13 litres per second). The median reported yield of domestic wells is 5 gallons per minute (.31 litres per second) and that of public supply wells is 30 gallons per minute (2 litres per second). Other consolidated rocks--rocks of Paleozoic age and the Watchung Basalt of Traissic age--are utilized primarily for domestic water supplies in Passaic County. Reported yields of wells tapping the Paleozoic rocks range from less than 1 to 35 gallons per minute (.06 to 2 litres per second) and the median yield is 10 gallons per minute (.63 litres per second). Reported yields of domestic wells tapping the Watchung Basalt range from less than 1 to 40 gallons per minute (.06 to 3 litres per second) and the median yield is 12 gallons per minute (.76 litres per second). However, reported yields of nine industrial and commercial wells range from 50 to 180 gallons per minute (3 to 11 litres per second). Unconsolidated stratified deposits of Quaternary age are locally an important source of ground water for public supply and industrial use in parts of Passaic County. These deposits have not been extensively explored but are potentially an important source of ground water for future development. Reported yields of wells tapping the stratified deposits range from 4 to 920 gallons per minute (.25 to 58 litres per second). The median reported yield of domestic wells is 16 gallons per minute (1 litre per second) and that of public supply and industrial wells is 130 gallons per minute (8 litres per second. Depths of wells depend upon the thickness of the deposits. Reported depths range from 22 to 170 feet (7 to 52 metres). The quality of ground water in Passaic County varies from one aquifer to another. Water from the Precambrian rocks is soft to moderately hard (34 to 104 milligrams per litre) and is low in dissolved solids (66 to 159 milligrams per litre). Water from the Brunswick Formation is moderately hard to very hard (89 to 540 milligrams per litre). The dissolved solids content ranges from 129 to 563 milligrams per litre). The occurrence of more highly mineralized water at depth in the Brunswick Formation is indicated by an analysis, made in 1885, of 16,000 milligrams per litre of dissolved solids at a depth of 2,050 feet (625 metres) in a well in Paterson. Water from two wells tapping the Quaternary deposits is moderately hard (65 and 83 milligrams per litre) and has dissolved solids contents of 122 and 133 milligrams per litre). Water use from both surface and ground-water supplies in Passaic County averaged about 106 million gallons per day (4.6 cubic metres per second) in 1965. Ground water probably accounts for 5 to 10 percent of this total. Ground-water pumpage by the major public supply companies in the county has increased from 2.1 million gallons per day (.09 cubic metres per second) in 1951 to 4.39 million gallons per day (.19 cubic metres per second) in 1968. About 80 percent of the 4.39 million gallons per day (.19 cubic metres per second) was from wells tapping the Brunswick Formation in the southern part of the county.

New Jersey↗

USGS1996

Estimated water use and general hydrologic conditions for Oregon, 1985 and 1990

Water-use information is vital to planners, engineers, and hydrologists in water resources. This report is a compilation of water-use information for Oregon for calendar years 1985 and 1990. The report presents water-use data by geographic region for several categories of use, including public supply, domestic, commercial, industrial, mining, thermoelectric power, hydroelectric power, live-stock, irrigation, reservoir evaporation, and wastewater treatment. Hydroelectric power is the only instream use discussed; all other uses are considered offstream. The Appendix presents 1985 and 1990 data by region and by drainage basin for the previously mentioned categories of use. The Cascade Range divides Oregon into two distinct climatic zones. The area west of the Cascade Range has an average annual precipitation that ranges from 40 to 200 inches, and precipitation in the area east of the Cascade Range ranges from 10 to 20 inches. The differences in precipitation and geology have an effect on the sources, uses, and amounts of water withdrawn. Most of the large public-supply systems west of the Cascade Range rely on surface water, whereas many of the large public-supply systems east of the Cascade Range use on wells or springs. Irrigators west of the Cascade Range rely primarily on nearby surface- water sources; however, irrigators east of the Cascade Range use primarily surface water that commonly is delivered from distant sources through irrigation ditches. A variety of methods was used to estimate water-use information. Most withdrawals for public-water suppliers were metered; however, irrigation withdrawals usually were estimated by using information on crops, climate, application efficiencies, and conveyance losses. The accuracy of the estimated total withdrawal values for public supply was estimated to be within 4 percent of the values that would be obtained if all public-supply withdrawals were metered. Total withdrawals for irrigation were estimated to be within 40 percent of metered irrigation withdrawals. The estimates-of-error are presented to show the relative, rather than absolute, accuracy of the data for each water-use category. A total of 8,400 million gallons of water per day was withdrawn in Oregon during 1990, about 1,900 million gallons per day more than the 6,500 million gallons per day withdrawn in 1985. Whereas actual water use increased in 1990, the major differences between 1985 and 1990 were attributed to the inclusion of offstream fish hatcheries, the use of different crop coefficients to estimate irrigation, and the availability of more detailed information in the 1990 estimates. Surface-water withdrawals accounted for 92 percent of the total withdrawals in 1990; irrigation was the largest category of water use, accounting for 82 percent of the total withdrawals.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2019

A bibliometric profile of the Remote Sensing Open Access Journal published by MDPI between 2009 and 2018

Remote Sensing Open Access Journal (RS OAJ) is an international leading journal in the field of remote sensing science and technology. It was first published in the year 2009 and is currently celebrating tenth year of publications. In this research, a bibliometric analysis of RS OAJ was conducted based on 5588 articles published during the 10-year (2009–2018) time-period. The bibliometric analysis includes a comprehensive set of indicators such as dynamics and trends of publications, journal impact factor, total cites, eigenfactor score, normalized eigenfactor, CiteScore, h-index, h-classic publications, most productive countries (or territories) and institutions, co-authorship collaboration about countries (territories), research themes, citation impact of co-occurrences keywords, intellectual structure, and knowledge commutation. We found that publications of RS OAJ presented an exponential growth in the past ten years. From 2010 to 2017 (for which complete years data were available), the h-index of RS OAJ is 67. From 2009–2018, RS OAJ includes publications from 129 countries (or territories) and 3826 institutions. The leading nations contributing articles, based on 2009–2018 data, and listed based on ranking were: China, United States, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Canada, England, Australia, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland and Austria. The leading institutions, also for the same period and listed based on ranking were: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan University, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing Normal University, The university of Maryland, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, China University of Geosciences, United States Geological Survey, German Aerospace Centre, University of Twente, and California Institute of Technology. For the year 2017, RS OAJ had an impressive journal impact factor of 3.4060, a CiteScore of 4.03, eigenfactor score of 0.0342, and normalized eigenfactor score of 3.99. In addition, based on 2009–2018, data co-word analysis determined that “remote sensing”, “MODIS”, “Landsat”, “LiDAR” and “NDVI” are the high-frequency of author keywords co-occurrence in RS OAJ. The main themes of RS OAJ are multi-spectral and hyperspectral remote sensing, LiDAR scanning and forestry remote sensing monitoring, MODIS and LAI data applications, Remote sensing applications and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Through author keywords citation impact analysis, we find the most influential keyword is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), followed, forestry, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), terrestrial laser scanning, airborne laser scanning, forestry inventory, urban heat island, monitoring, agriculture, and laser scanning. By analyzing the intellectual structure of RS OAJ, we identify the main reference publications and find that the themes are about Random Forests, MODIS vegetation indices and image analysis, etc. RS OAJ ranks first in cited journals and third in citing, this indicates that RS OAJ has the internal knowledge flow. Our results will bring more benefits to scholars, researchers and graduate students, who hopes to get a quick overview of the RS OAJ. And this article will also be the starting point for communication between scholars and practitioners. Finally, this paper proposed a nuanced h-index (nh-index) to measure productivity and intellectual contribution of authors by considering h-index based on whether the one is first, second, third, or nth author. This nuanced approach to determining h-index of authors is powerful indicator of an academician’s productivity and intellectual contribution.

Remote Sensing↗

USGS2024

Are researchers citing their data? A case study from the U.S. Geological Survey

Data citation promotes accessibility and discoverability of data through measures carried out by researchers, publishers, repositories, and the scientific community. This paper examines how a data citation workflow has been implemented by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by evaluating publication and data linkages. Two different methods were used to identify data citations: examining publication structural metadata and examining the full text of the publication. A growing number of USGS researchers are complying with publisher data sharing policies aimed to capture data citation information in a standardized way within associated publications. However, inconsistencies in how data citation information is documented in publications has limited the accessibility and discoverability of the data. This paper demonstrates how organizational evaluations of publication and data linkages can be used to identify obstacles in advancing data citation efforts and improve data citation workflows.

Data Science Journal↗

USGS2022

Collaborative hubs: Making the most of predictive epidemic modeling

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that epidemic models play an important role in how governments and the public understand and respond to infectious disease crises. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, models were used first to estimate the true number of infections, then to provide estimates of key parameters, to generate short-term forecasts of outbreak trends, and to quantify the possible effects of different interventions on the unfolding epidemic. In contrast to the central coordinating role played by major national or international agencies in weather-related emergencies, pandemic modeling efforts were initially scattered across many individual research institutions and academic groups. Differences in modeling approaches and assumptions of each individual effort led to contrasting results that at times contributed to confusion in public perception of the pandemic. For this reason, recent efforts to publicly coordinate modeling efforts in so-called “hubs” have provided governments, public health partners, and the public with assessments and forecasts that reflect the consensus (or lack thereof) in the modeling community. This has been achieved by openly and transparently synthesizing uncertainties across different individual modeling approaches and facilitating comparisons between them.

American Journal of Public Health↗

USGS2018

Are waterfowl food resources limited during spring migration? A bioenergetic assessment of playas in Nebraska's rainwater basin

Accurate bioenergetic carrying capacity estimates of wetlands on public and private lands, as well as those managed for crop production are important for managing waterfowl populations and habitats. Given the importance of wetlands in the Rainwater Basin region of Nebraska for spring migrating waterfowl, we quantified and compared seed and aquatic invertebrate biomass and true metabolizable energy (TME) at three wetland types; public wetlands, wetlands enrolled in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and cropped wetlands. Median seed biomass estimates at public, WRP, and cropped wetlands were 593kg/ha, 561kg/ha, and 419kg/ha respectively. Cumulative TME varied among wetland type, with greater TME at cropped wetlands (2,431kcal/kg) than public (1,740kcal/kg) and WRP wetlands (1,781kcal/kg). Seed biomass estimates from this study were statistically greater than those currently used for management planning in the RWB, however, TME estimates were statistically lower than estimates currently assumed for WRP and public wetlands. Our estimates for aquatic invertebrate biomass were approximately 40-fold less than seed biomass estimates. Based on spring ponding frequency at wetlands in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin, and the caloric estimates derived for each wetland type, we concluded that the regions wetlands meet the energetic demand of spring migrating waterfowl during 10% of years.

Nebraska↗

USGS2025

Wildfire risk information sources and the acceptability of fuels treatments near select WUI communities in the Western United States

Fuels treatments intended to reduce fuel loads and improve forest health on public lands offer one way to reduce wildfire hazards in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), where the natural and built environments meet. However, for fuels treatment implementation to be successful, it must comply with regulatory and scientific standards and be supported by local communities, as lack of acceptance can lead to alterations, delays, or abandonment. To foster support, public land managers can engage directly with residents in communities near treatment areas through various communication channels or engage indirectly through trusted local partners. This research uses paired household survey and observed parcel-level wildfire risk assessment data to investigate wildfire risk information sources' role in the acceptability of fuels treatment approaches on public lands near select WUI communities in the Western United States. We find that information deemed useful from sources is often positively correlated with acceptability, while information deemed not useful is sometimes negatively correlated. Local sources of information tend to be widely received, perceived as useful, and have positive correlations with acceptability, while nonlocal sources vary in their receipt, perceived usefulness, and correlations with acceptability. Public land managers, particularly those from national organizations, may benefit from leveraging and aligning messaging with trusted local partners. Developing fuels treatment plans that consider existing local sentiments may facilitate public trust in managers and acceptability of treatments.

Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming↗

USGS2020

Nowcasting methods for determining microbiological water quality at recreational beaches and drinking-water source waters

Nowcasts are tools used to provide timely and accurate water-quality assessments of threats to drinking-water and recreational resources from fecal contamination or cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms. They use mathematical models and techniques to provide near-real-time estimates of fecal-indicator bacteria (FIB) and cyanotoxin concentrations. Techniques include logic-based thresholds, decision trees (built with machine learning), multiple linear and binary logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and process-based deterministic models. The type of site (freshwater, marine, or river) and dependent variable (FIB or cyanotoxin) dictate which explanatory variables are used in models. Nowcast systems notify the public of associated public-health risks and can also be used to manage data for FIB models; work is ongoing to incorporate cyanotoxin models into some nowcasts. The Great Lakes NowCast in the USA has been operational since 2010 and includes 25 lake beaches and one recreational river site. Examples of other operational FIB nowcasts are described for locations in the USA and around the world. In many cases, models predicted exceedances of FIB standards with accuracies as good as or better than using the previous measured FIB concentration (persistence method). Accuracy and timeliness are vital to beach management decisions that protect public health and support the local recreation-driven economy. Nowcasts benefit the public by providing estimates of water-quality conditions in near-real-time. Managers can use nowcasts at recreational and drinking-water treatment plant sites when FIB or cyanotoxins are projected to be elevated to target sample collection, to provide near-real-time recreational advisories to the public, or to preemptively optimize drinking-water treatments or change intake options to mitigate possible adverse effects on drinking-water quality.

Journal of Microbiological Methods↗

USGS2021

Lithium in groundwater used for drinking-water supply in the United States

Lithium concentrations in untreated groundwater from 1464 public-supply wells and 1676 domestic-supply wells distributed across 33 principal aquifers in the United States were evaluated for spatial variations and possible explanatory factors. Concentrations nationwide ranged from <1 to 396 μg/L (median of 8.1) for public supply wells and <1 to 1700 μg/L (median of 6 μg/L) for domestic supply wells. For context, lithium concentrations were compared to a Health Based Screening Level (HBSL, 10 μg/L) and a drinking-water only threshold (60 μg/L). These thresholds were exceeded in 45% and 9% of samples from public-supply wells and in 37% and 6% from domestic-supply wells, respectively. However, exceedances and median concentrations ranged broadly across geographic regions and principal aquifers. Concentrations were highest in arid regions and older groundwater, particularly in unconsolidated clastic aquifers and sandstones, and lowest in carbonate-rock aquifers, consistent with differences in lithium abundance among major lithologies and rock weathering extent. The median concentration for public-supply wells in the unconsolidated clastic High Plains aquifer (central United States) was 24.6 μg/L; 24% of the wells exceeded the drinking-water only threshold and 86% exceeded the HBSL. Other unconsolidated clastic aquifers in the arid West had exceedance rates comparable to the High Plains aquifer, whereas no public supply wells in the Biscayne aquifer (southern Florida) exceeded either threshold, and the highest concentration in that aquifer was 2.6 μg/L. Multiple lines of evidence indicate natural sources for the lithium concentrations; however, anthropogenic sources may be important in the future because of the rapid increase of lithium battery use and subsequent disposal. Geochemical models demonstrate that extensive evaporation, mineral dissolution, cation exchange, and mixing with geothermal waters or brines may account for the observed lithium and associated constituent concentrations, with the latter two processes as major contributing factors.

Science of the Total Environment↗