USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Water Economics and Policy”

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

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

115 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS1963

Public water supplies in Gloucester County, New Jersey

Gloucester County is in the southwestern part of New Jersey, below Camden, and is a part of the Lower Delaware River Valley. This area is attracting new industry and has shown a population increase of about 47 percent from 1950 to 1960, mostly urban. With the economic growth of the county, the availability and quality of water become increasingly important. The county is in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey. It is underlain by unconsolidated sands and clays of Quaternary, Tertiary, and Cretaceous age. The Raritan and Magothy Formations constitute the most important aquifers and yield more than 95 percent of the water pumped by the public water systems in the county. These formations are capable of yielding 1,400 gpm (gallons per minute) or more to large diameter wells. High yielding wells generally can be drilled anywhere in the county, although the formations are deeper toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cohansey Sand, second most important aquifer, yields up to 800 gpm or more from large diameter wells. This aquifer is present only in the sparsely populated southeastern half of the county. The Wenonah Formation and Mount Laurel Sand are capable of yielding 100 to 200 gpm in certain areas. The overall chemical quality of the naturally occurring ground water is good. The water generally meets the U.S. Public Health Service's (1962) suggested limit for dissolved solids; however, in some areas, the water carries objectionable amounts of iron and nitrate in solution and has a low pH. Contamination of ground water by salt-water encroachment or by pollution from industrial activity or organic waste in densely populated areas should be prevented. The quality rather than the quantity of water may be the important factor in future ground-water developments. The 21 public water systems in Gloucester County pumped about 1.3 billion gallons of water during 1948 and some 2.7 billion gallons during 1959. This is slightly more than a hundred percent increase in pumpage in 12 year s. The average per capita public water supply consumption in 1959 was approximately 75 gallons per day. This report includes a summary of the history of the present installations, groundwater conditions, quality and availability of water, and potential future yield for the 2 public water systems in Gloucester County.

New Jersey↗
USGS2025

Global methane budget 2000-2020

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH 4 ) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH 4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH 4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH 4 emissions compared to those of CO 2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH 4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH 4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH 4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH 4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH 4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH 4 yr −1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH 4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH 4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH 4 yr −1 , range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH 4 yr −1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH 4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH 4 yr −1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty ( ∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH 4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH 4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH 4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH 4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH 4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning.

Earth System Science Data↗
USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2015

Water use in Georgia by county for 2010 and water-use trends, 1985–2010

Water use and water withdrawals and returns in 2010 are estimated for each major river basin, principal aquifer, water-planning region, and county in Georgia using data obtained from various Federal and State agencies and local sources. Offstream water use in 2010 is estimated for the categories of public supply, domestic, commercial, industrial, mining, irrigation, livestock, aquaculture, and thermoelectric power. Water-use trends for 1985 to 2010 are also shown. The period between 2007 and 2010 was a challenging time economically and climatologically in Georgia. During that period, the United States was in the midst of a major recession, resulting in decreases in the manufacturing and construction industries and large increases in unemployment. During 2007, 2008, and the latter half of 2010, precipitation in Georgia was substantially below the 30-year norm. According to the 2010 Census of Population and Housing, nearly 9.7 million people lived in Georgia. The water for about 85 percent of that population was provided by public water suppliers. Estimated total water withdrawals from ground-water and surface-water sources were about 4,670 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 2010, about a 15-percent reduction from 2005 (5,471 Mgal/d). In 2010, thermoelectric-power facilities (2,046 Mgal/d) and public-supply uses (1,121 Mgal/d) accounted for 68 percent of all water withdrawn in Georgia. Surface-water withdrawals were greatest for thermoelectric-power generation (2,043 Mgal/d), whereas irrigation used the largest amount of groundwater (599 Mgal/d). Surface water provided 78 percent of the 1,121 Mgal/day withdrawn for public supply in 2010. Typically, counties in northern Georgia withdraw a larger percentage of water from surface water than groundwater sources; whereas, counties in the southern part of the State withdraw more water from groundwater sources. Historically, water withdrawals in Georgia were highest in 1980 (6,725 Mgal/d). By 1990, water use had decreased by 20 percent to 5,353 Mgal/d, but increased to 6,487 Mgal/d in 2000. By 2005, water use had decreased to an estimated 5,471 Mgal/d, and declined further to 4,670 Mgal/d in 2010—a 30-percent decrease since 1980. This decline was evident across all water-use categories, but was greatest for surface-water withdrawals by thermoelectric-power facilities. The estimated total water use per capita in 1985 (total withdrawals for all categories divided by total population) was about 850 gallons per day (gal/d), steadily decreasing to about 798 gal/d in 2000, and decreasing further to 460 gal/d in 2010. Although water use declined among all use categories during that 10-year period, most of the decline in per capita water use was caused by the large decrease in water used for thermoelectric-power generation. Throughout 1985–2010 water withdrawn for thermoelectric-power generation has constituted the largest volume of offstream water use in Georgia. Total withdrawals for thermoelectric-power generation declined about 37 percent between 2000 and 2010, mostly due to the decommissioning of power plants in the State. Also during this period, several power plants were shut down and re-tooled to use natural gas-powered generators; thus, water withdrawals for cooling were substantially reduced. The decline in water withdrawals and use between 2005 and 2010 can probably be attributed to several factors working together during this period: (1) water conservation laws and policies along with advances in water-conservation technology; (2) the onset of a major recession in 2007; and (3) below average rainfall in 2007, 2008, and the latter half of 2010. Because of these factors, water withdrawn by public suppliers decreased by 4.8 percent (despite a nearly 11-percent increase in population served) and per capita use decreased by 19 percent between 2005 and 2010. About 2,225 Mgal/d of water was returned to Georgia streams and lakes in 2010 under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program administered by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. This amount is about 48 percent of the total water withdrawn from all sources in 2010. Water returns declined 39 percent between 1995 and 2010, mirroring the decline in water withdrawals during that period. In addition, land applications of treated wastewater increased steadily between 1995 and 2010.

Georgia↗
USGS2017

Agricultural irrigated land-use inventory for Polk County, Florida, 2016

An accurate inventory of irrigated crop acreage is not available at the level of resolution needed to better estimate agricultural water use or to project future water demands in many Florida counties. A detailed digital map and summary of irrigated acreage was developed for Polk County, Florida, during the 2016 growing season. This cooperative project between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Office of Agricultural Water Policy of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is part of an effort to improve estimates of water use and projections of future demands across all counties in the State. The irrigated areas were delineated by using land-use data provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, along with information obtained from the South and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts consumptive water-use permits. Delineations were field verified between April and December 2016. Attribute data such as crop type, primary water source, and type of irrigation system were assigned to the irrigated areas. The results of this inventory and field verification indicate that during the 2016 growing seasons (spring, summer, fall, and winter), an estimated 88,652 acres were irrigated within Polk County. Of the total field-verified crops, 83,995 acres were in citrus; 2,893 acres were in other non-citrus fruit crops (blueberries, grapes, peaches, and strawberries); 621 acres were in row crops (primarily beans and watermelons); 1,117 acres were in nursery (container and tree farms) and sod production; and 26 acres were in field crops including hay and pasture. Of the total inventoried irrigated acreage within Polk County, 98 percent (86,566 acres) was in the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the remaining 2 percent (2,086 acres) was in the South Florida Water Management District. About 85,788 acres (96.8 percent of the acreage inventoried) were irrigated by a microirrigation system, including drip, bubblers, and spray emitters. The remaining 3.2 percent of the irrigated acreage was irrigated by a sprinkler system (2,360 acres) or subsurface flood systems (504 acres). Groundwater was the primary source of water used on irrigated acreage (88 percent, or 78,050 acres); the remaining 10,602 acres (12 percent) used groundwater combined with surface water as the irrigation source. The irrigated acreage estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for this 2016 inventory (88,652 acres) is about 11 percent higher than the 79,869 acres estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for 2012. Citrus and pasture in Polk County show the biggest difference in irrigated acreage between the USGS and USDA totals. Irrigated citrus acreage inventoried in 2016 by the USGS totaled 83,996 acres, whereas the USDA reported 78,305 acres of citrus in 2012. The USGS identified 6 acres of irrigated pasture and 20 acres of hay, whereas the USDA reported 6,631 acres of irrigated pasture and 1,349 acres of hay for 2012. In general, differences between the 2016 USGS field-verified acreage totals and acreage published by the USDA for 2012 could be due to (1) irrigated acreage for some specific crops increased or decreased substantially during the 4-year interval between 2012 and 2016 because of production or economic changes, (2) the assumption that if an irrigation system was present, it was used in 2016, when in fact some landowners may not have used their irrigation systems during this growing period even if they had a crop in the field, or (3) the amount of irrigated acreage published by the USDA for selected crops may be underestimated as a result of how information is obtained and formulated by the agency during census compilations.

Florida↗
USGS2019

Managing effects of drought and other water resource challenges in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest

This is a Cooperator Report. As such, there is no specific abstract. The physical, ecological, and social environments of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the United States are extremely diverse. Alaska ranges from the Arctic Ocean and the very cold, dry environments of the North Slope to the cool and very rainy coastal North Pacific region of Southeast Alaska. Most precipitation falls as snow at higher elevations. In Arctic Alaska, average annual temperature is 14.6 F, and average annual precipitation is 11 inches. By contrast, in Southeast Alaska, average annual temperature is 35.8 F, and annual average precipitation is 143 inches. The PNW, defined here as Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, ranges from the Pacific Coast (annual precipitation of 200 inches) to interior semi-arid regions (annual precipitation of 8 inches). Precipitation patterns in the PNW are strongly governed by orographic phenomena, with high, persistent snowpack in the higher mountains (e.g., record annual snowfall of 1,130 in at Mount Baker, Washington in 1999-2000). Ecosystems in the PNW include productive temperate coniferous forests near the Pacific coast and along the (wet) west slope of the Cascade Range, less productive mixed-conifer forest along the (dry) east slope of the Cascades and in interior mountain ranges, and sagebrush-steppe and shrublands at lower elevations in much of the interior and mountain valleys. Large rivers and thousands of smaller tributaries form an extensive network of riparian, wetland, and estuarine systems that provide both critical hydrologic function and biological diversity at broad and fine spatial scales. Although Alaska and the Pacific Northwest differ in important physical, ecological, and social features, the importance of natural resources is evident in both regions. Water is important for wildlife and people. Water provides critical habitat for salmon, which are culturally and economically valuable species. Timber production has declined in recent decades. Recreation has emerged as a major revenue source.

Alaska, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2012

The United States National Climate Assessment - Alaska Technical Regional Report

The Alaskan landscape is changing, both in terms of effects of human activities as a consequence of increased population, social and economic development and their effects on the local and broad landscape; and those effects that accompany naturally occurring hazards such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Some of the most prevalent changes, however, are those resulting from a changing climate, with both near term and potential upcoming effects expected to continue into the future. Alaska's average annual statewide temperatures have increased by nearly 4°F from 1949 to 2005, with significant spatial variability due to the large latitudinal and longitudinal expanse of the State. Increases in mean annual temperature have been greatest in the interior region, and smallest in the State's southwest coastal regions. In general, however, trends point toward increases in both minimum temperatures, and in fewer extreme cold days. Trends in precipitation are somewhat similar to those in temperature, but with more variability. On the whole, Alaska saw a 10-percent increase in precipitation from 1949 to 2005, with the greatest increases recorded in winter. The National Climate Assessment has designated two well-established scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nakicenovic and others, 2001) as a minimum set that technical and author teams considered as context in preparing portions of this assessment. These two scenarios are referred to as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 and B1 scenarios, which assume either a continuation of recent trends in fossil fuel use (A2) or a vigorous global effort to reduce fossil fuel use (B1). Temperature increases from 4 to 22°F are predicted (to 2070-2099) depending on which emissions scenario (A2 or B1) is used with the least warming in southeast Alaska and the greatest in the northwest. Concomitant with temperature changes, by the end of the 21st century the growing season is expected to lengthen by 15-25 days in some areas of Alaska, with much of that corresponding with earlier spring snow melt. Future projections of precipitation (30-80 years) over Alaska show an increase across the State, with the largest changes in the northwest and smallest in the southeast. Because of increasing temperatures and growing season length, however, increased precipitation may not correspond with increased water availability, due to temperature related increased evapotranspiration. The extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s, with stronger trends noted since the late 1980s. Alaska has experienced similar trends, with a strong decrease in snow cover extent occurring in May. When averaged across the State, the disappearance of snow in the spring has occurred from 4 to 6 days earlier per decade, and snow return in fall has occurred approximately 2 days later per decade. This change appears to be driven by climate warming rather than a decrease in winter precipitation, with average winter temperatures also increasing by about 2.5°F. The extent of sea ice has been declining, as has been widely published in both national and scientific media outlets, and is projected to continue to decline during this century. The observed decline in annual sea ice minimum extent (September) has occurred more rapidly than was predicted by climate models and has been accompanied by decreases in ice thickness and in the presence of multi-year ice. This decrease was first documented by satellite imagery in the late 1970s for the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and is projected to continue, with the potential for the disappearance of summer sea ice by mid- to late century. A new phenomenon that was not reported in previous assessments is ocean acidification. Uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by oceans has a significant effect on marine biogeochemistry by reducing seawater pH. Ocean acidification is of particular concern in Alaska, because cold sea water absorbs CO2 more rapidly than warm water, and a decrease in sea ice extent has allowed increased sea surface exposure and more uptake of CO2 into these northern waters. Ocean acidification will likely affect the ability of organisms to produce and maintain shell material, such as aragonite or calcite (calcium carbonate minerals structured from carbonate ions), required by many shelled organism, from mollusks to corals to microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Direct biological effects in Alaska further along the food chain have yet to be studied and may vary among organisms. Some of the potentially most significant changes to Alaska that could result from a changing climate are the effects on the terrestrial cryosphere - particularly glaciers and permafrost. Alaskan glaciers are changing at a rapid rate, the primary driver appearing to be temperature. Statewide, glaciers lost 13 cubic miles of ice annually from the 1950s to the 1990s, and that rate doubled in the 2000s. However, like temperature and precipitation, glacier ice loss is not spatially uniform; most glaciers are losing mass, yet some are growing (for example Hubbard Glacier in southeast Alaska). Alaska glaciers with the most rapid loss are those terminating in sea water or lakes. With this increasing rate of melt, the contribution of surplus fresh water entering into the oceans from Alaska's glaciers, as well as those in neighboring British Columbia, Canada, is approximately 20 percent of that contributed by the Greenland Ice Sheet. Permafrost degradation (that is, the thawing of ice-rich soils) is currently (2012) impacting infrastructure and surface-water availability in areas of both discontinuous and continuous ground ice. Over most of the State, the permafrost is warming, with increasing temperatures broadly consistent with increasing air temperatures. On the Arctic coastal plain of Alaska, permafrost temperatures showed some cooling in the 1950s and 1960s but have been followed by a roughly 5°F increase since the 1980s. Many areas in the continuous permafrost zone have seen increases in temperature in the seasonally active layer and a decrease in re-freezing rates. Changes in the discontinuous permafrost zone are initially much more observable due to the resulting thermokarst terrain (land surface formed as ice rich permafrost thaws), most notable in boreal forested areas. Climate warming in Alaska has potentially broad implications for human health and food security, especially in rural areas, as well as increased risk for injury with changing winter ice conditions. Additionally, such warming poses the potential for increasing damage to existing water and sanitation facilities and challenges for development of new facilities, especially in areas underlain by permafrost. Non-infectious and infectious diseases also are becoming an increasing concern. For example, from 1999 to 2006 there was a statistically significant increase in medical claims for insectbite reactions in five of six regions of Alaska, with the largest percentage increase occurring in the most northern areas. The availability and quality of subsistence foods, normally considered to be very healthy, may change due to changing access, changing habitats, and spoilage of meat in food storage cellars. These and other trends and potential outcomes resulting from a changing climate are further described in this report. In addition, we describe new science leadership activities that have been initiated to address and provide guidance toward conducting research aimed at making available information for policy makers and land management agencies to better understand, address, and plan for changes to the local and regional environment. This report cites data in both metric and standard units due to the contributions by numerous authors and the direct reference of their data.

Alaska↗