DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Guide to Ground Water Resource Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Guide to Ground Water Resource Management United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide to Forest Service Minerals and Geology Managing Ground Management Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Water Resources Engineering FS-881 May 2007 Acknowledgments This technical guide was written by Steve Glasser, James Gauthier-Warinner, Joseph Gurrieri, and Joseph Keely of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; Patrick Tucci of the U.S. Geological Survey; Paul Summers of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management; and Michael Wireman and Kevin McCormack of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The document benefited greatly from our colleagues, too numerous to list, who reviewed the content and provided valuable comments. Editing was provided by Joe Gurrieri, Jim Gauthier-Warinner, and Christopher Carlson of the Forest Service. Special recognition is extended to Steve Glasser, without whose vision and perseverance this effort would never have come to fruition. Cover photograph: Spouting Rock, a spring that feeds Hanging Lake, White River National Forest, east of Glenwood Springs, CO. (Photo by Patrick Tucci.) 2 Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................. viii Part 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................1 Purpose and Objectives ...............................................................................2 Scope and Organization ..............................................................................2 Importance of Ground Water Resources on NFS Lands .........................2 Part 2. Managing Ground Water Resources ....................................................5 Federal Statutes ...........................................................................................5 Overview of the National Ground Water Policy .......................................5 Land Management Planning ......................................................................6 Water Development ...................................................................................6 Water Quality ............................................................................................7 Ground Water-dependent Ecosystems .......................................................7 Inventory and Monitoring .........................................................................8 Data Management .....................................................................................8 Partnerships ...............................................................................................8 Ground Water Uses .....................................................................................8 Management of Drinking-water Supplies .................................................9 Source-water Protection .....................................................................11 Coordination with Public Water-supply Purveyors ........................11 Protecting Public Water Supplies Through Forest Planning ..........11 Special-use Authorizations for Water Wells and Pipelines ................12 Initial Screening ..............................................................................17 Second-level Screening ..................................................................17 Environmental Analysis .................................................................18 Exploratory Drilling Procedures .....................................................19 Construction and Production Permitting ........................................19 Monitoring and Mitigation .............................................................19 Case Study: Ground Water Development, Tonto National Forest, AZ ..............................................................20 Carlota Copper Company Wellfield ...............................................20 Sunflower Well ...............................................................................23 Stock Watering on Public Land ...............................................................24 Managing Ground Water Quantity Problems ............................................25 Detection and Monitoring ..................................................................25 Limiting Withdrawals .........................................................................27 Increasing Recharge ...........................................................................27 Conjunctive Management of Surface Water and Ground Water ........27 Case Study: Conjunctive Use of Ground Water and Surface Water, Tonto National Forest, AZ ..............................................................27 Dowsing ..................................................................................................31 Ground Water Quality ..............................................................................33 Application of Water Quality Regulations to Ground Water ..................34 Ground Water Classification ..............................................................35 Ground Water Discharge Permits .......................................................36 Total Maximum Daily Loads .............................................................36 Water-quality Databases .....................................................................37 i Ground Water-dependent Ecosystems .....................................................37 Types of Ground Water-dependent Ecosystems ........................................39 Terrestrial Vegetation and Fauna ........................................................39 Ecosystems in Streams and Lakes Fed by Ground Water ..................39 Hyporheic and Hypolentic Zones .......................................................41 Springs ................................................................................................41 Aquifer, Karst, and Cave Ecosystems ................................................42 Wetlands .............................................................................................42 Management Considerations and Protection Strategies ..........................43 Case Study: Importance of Ground Water in Alpine-lake Ecosystems, Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, MT .........................45 Activities That Affect Ground Water ......................................................47 Mineral Development ..................................................................................47 Hardrock Mining ................................................................................47 Ore Processing ................................................................................47 Water Management .........................................................................48 Waste Management .........................................................................49 Mine Closure ..................................................................................50 Potential Impacts to Ground Water Resources ...............................50 Case Study: Depletion of Streamflow by Underground Mining, Stillwater Mine, Custer National Forest, MT ............................53 Coal Mining........................................................................................55 Potential Impacts to Ground Water Resources ...............................55 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development ............................................56 Potential Impacts to Ground Water Resources ...............................57 Coal-bed Methane ..............................................................................58 Disposal of Production Water .........................................................59 Ground Water Pumping ...........................................................................60 Declining Water Levels ......................................................................60 Land Subsidence ................................................................................63 Impacts of Subsidence ....................................................................67 Ground Water and Slope Stability ...........................................................67 Effects of Vegetation Management on Ground Water .............................73 Phreatophyte Management .................................................................73 Upland Forest Management ...............................................................74 Case Study: Effects of Acidic Precipitation on Ground Water, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, NH ......................................75 Impacts from Fires ..................................................................................76 Wildland/Urban Interface ........................................................................77 Monitoring ..................................................................................................77 Monitoring Program Objectives ..............................................................77 Background or Baseline Monitoring ..................................................79 Monitoring for Specific Land-use Impacts ........................................79 Case Study: Ground Water Monitoring in the Turkey Creek Watershed, Jefferson County, CO ..............................................79 Monitoring for Facility-based Compliance ...........................................81 Monitoring of Ground Water-dependent Ecosystems ........................81 Case Study:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Pathways
    Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Pathways Guidance for ATSDR’s Division of Community Health Investigations October 31, 2016 Contents Acronym List ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 What are the potential health risks from the vapor intrusion pathway? ............................................................................... 2 When should a vapor intrusion pathway be evaluated? ........................................................................................................ 3 Why is it so difficult to assess the public health hazard posed by the vapor intrusion pathway? .......................................... 3 What is the best approach for a public health evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway? ................................................. 5 Public health evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Vapor intrusion evaluation process outline ............................................................................................................................ 8 References… …......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply
    The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply Updated May 22, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45259 The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply Summary Groundwater, the water in aquifers accessible by wells, is a critical component of the U.S. water supply. It is important for both domestic and agricultural water needs, among other uses. Nearly half of the nation’s population uses groundwater to meet daily needs; in 2015, about 149 million people (46% of the nation’s population) relied on groundwater for their domestic indoor and outdoor water supply. The greatest volume of groundwater used every day is for agriculture, specifically for irrigation. In 2015, irrigation accounted for 69% of the total fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States. For that year, California pumped the most groundwater for irrigation, followed by Arkansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Texas, and Kansas, in that order. Groundwater also is used as a supply for mining, oil and gas development, industrial processes, livestock, and thermoelectric power, among other uses. Congress generally has deferred management of U.S. groundwater resources to the states, and there is little indication that this practice will change. Congress, various states, and other stakeholders recently have focused on the potential for using surface water to recharge aquifers and the ability to recover stored groundwater when needed. Some see aquifer recharge, storage, and recovery as a replacement or complement to surface water reservoirs, and there is interest in how federal agencies can support these efforts. In the congressional context, there is interest in the potential for federal policies to facilitate state, local, and private groundwater management efforts (e.g., management of federal reservoir releases to allow for groundwater recharge by local utilities).
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Flooding Affects Habitat and Landscape Dynamics of a Gravel
    Seasonal flooding affects habitat and landscape dynamics of a gravel-bed river floodplain Katelyn P. Driscoll1,2,5 and F. Richard Hauer1,3,4,6 1Systems Ecology Graduate Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA 2Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 USA 3Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, Montana 59806 USA 4Montana Institute on Ecosystems, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA Abstract: Floodplains are comprised of aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are reshaped frequently by hydrologic processes that operate at multiple spatial and temporal scales. It is well established that hydrologic and geomorphic dynamics are the primary drivers of habitat change in river floodplains over extended time periods. However, the effect of fluctuating discharge on floodplain habitat structure during seasonal flooding is less well understood. We collected ultra-high resolution digital multispectral imagery of a gravel-bed river floodplain in western Montana on 6 dates during a typical seasonal flood pulse and used it to quantify changes in habitat abundance and diversity as- sociated with annual flooding. We observed significant changes in areal abundance of many habitat types, such as riffles, runs, shallow shorelines, and overbank flow. However, the relative abundance of some habitats, such as back- waters, springbrooks, pools, and ponds, changed very little. We also examined habitat transition patterns through- out the flood pulse. Few habitat transitions occurred in the main channel, which was dominated by riffle and run habitat. In contrast, in the near-channel, scoured habitats of the floodplain were dominated by cobble bars at low flows but transitioned to isolated flood channels at moderate discharge.
    [Show full text]
  • Modifying Wepp to Improve Streamflow Simulation in a Pacific Northwest Watershed
    MODIFYING WEPP TO IMPROVE STREAMFLOW SIMULATION IN A PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERSHED A. Srivastava, M. Dobre, J. Q. Wu, W. J. Elliot, E. A. Bruner, S. Dun, E. S. Brooks, I. S. Miller ABSTRACT. The assessment of water yield from hillslopes into streams is critical in managing water supply and aquatic habitat. Streamflow is typically composed of surface runoff, subsurface lateral flow, and groundwater baseflow; baseflow sustains the stream during the dry season. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model simulates surface runoff, subsurface lateral flow, soil water, and deep percolation. However, to adequately simulate hydrologic conditions with significant quantities of groundwater flow into streams, a baseflow component for WEPP is needed. The objectives of this study were (1) to simulate streamflow in the Priest River Experimental Forest in the U.S. Pacific Northwest using the WEPP model and a baseflow routine, and (2) to compare the performance of the WEPP model with and without including the baseflow using observed streamflow data. The baseflow was determined using a linear reservoir model. The WEPP- simulated and observed streamflows were in reasonable agreement when baseflow was considered, with an overall Nash- Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.67 and deviation of runoff volume (Dv) of 7%. In contrast, the WEPP simulations without including baseflow resulted in an overall NSE of 0.57 and Dv of 47%. On average, the simulated baseflow accounted for 43% of the streamflow and 12% of precipitation annually. Integration of WEPP with a baseflow routine improved the model’s applicability to watersheds where groundwater contributes to streamflow. Keywords. Baseflow, Deep seepage, Forest watershed, Hydrologic modeling, Subsurface lateral flow, Surface runoff, WEPP.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notice >> Licensing and Management System Admin >>
    REPORT NO. PN-2-210125-01 | PUBLISH DATE: 01/25/2021 Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street NE PUBLIC NOTICE Washington, D.C. 20554 News media info. (202) 418-0500 ACTIONS File Number Purpose Service Call Sign Facility ID Station Type Channel/Freq. City, State Applicant or Licensee Status Date Status 0000122670 Renewal of FM KLWL 176981 Main 88.1 CHILLICOTHE, MO CSN INTERNATIONAL 01/21/2021 Granted License From: To: 0000123755 Renewal of FM KCOU 28513 Main 88.1 COLUMBIA, MO The Curators of the 01/21/2021 Granted License University of Missouri From: To: 0000123699 Renewal of FL KSOZ-LP 192818 96.5 SALEM, MO Salem Christian 01/21/2021 Granted License Catholic Radio From: To: 0000123441 Renewal of FM KLOU 9626 Main 103.3 ST. LOUIS, MO CITICASTERS 01/21/2021 Granted License LICENSES, INC. From: To: 0000121465 Renewal of FX K244FQ 201060 96.7 ELKADER, IA DESIGN HOMES, INC. 01/21/2021 Granted License From: To: 0000122687 Renewal of FM KNLP 83446 Main 89.7 POTOSI, MO NEW LIFE 01/21/2021 Granted License EVANGELISTIC CENTER, INC From: To: Page 1 of 146 REPORT NO. PN-2-210125-01 | PUBLISH DATE: 01/25/2021 Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street NE PUBLIC NOTICE Washington, D.C. 20554 News media info. (202) 418-0500 ACTIONS File Number Purpose Service Call Sign Facility ID Station Type Channel/Freq. City, State Applicant or Licensee Status Date Status 0000122266 Renewal of FX K217GC 92311 Main 91.3 NEVADA, MO CSN INTERNATIONAL 01/21/2021 Granted License From: To: 0000122046 Renewal of FM KRXL 34973 Main 94.5 KIRKSVILLE, MO KIRX, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Tattler 6/16PM
    Volume XXXII • Number 24 • June 16, 2006 Conclave Learning Conference 2006: Future Tense. Marriott City Center/ Minneapolis. Rev. Al Sharpton, Gloria Steinem, Glenn Beck, & Terryl THE Brown Clemons. 14 Format Symposia. Over 40 sessions. $499 until July 1st, when the $599 walk-up rate will apply! To register for the 2006 Learning AIN TREET Conference or for questions on any Conclave program, call 952-927-4487 M S or visit www.theconclave.com. Communicator Network Clear Channel/Des Moines has launched AAA KPTL -“The Capital” - formerly occupying the frequency owned by Adult Hits KDRB. (KDRB shifted T AA TT TT LL EE R to “100.3 The Bus” a few weeks ago when KMXD flipped from AC.) The T R Bus continued broadcasting on its old frequency until the format was Publisher: Tom Kay Editor • Jess Treft launched under the guidance of CC National Triple A Format Brand Manager Cartoons Pilfered by Lenny Bronstein (and KTCZ/Minneapolis PD) Lauren Macleash. CC VP/Market Mgr. Joel McCrea said, “The incredible success of KDRB ‘The Bus’ prompted us to 1986-Main1986 Main Street’s 20th Anniversary-2006Anniversary 2006 move that station to a much stronger signal at 100.3FM. That created an opportunity to create something new for the market on the 106.3 frequency.” Syndicated talk show host Ed Schultz claims that “Republicans and He added, “People who liked KFMG, and before that KDMG, would like Conservatives” are conspiring to get him taken off Clear Channel Talk this station.”(KPTL is in the process of hiring at least three on-air WCKY-A/Cincinnati.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives : Evidence from Mexico
    Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives : Evidence from Mexico Vincente Ruiz WP 2016.05 Suggested citation: V. Ruiz (2016). Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives : Evidence from Mexico. FAERE Working Paper, 2016.05. ISSN number: 2274-5556 www.faere.fr Groundwater Overdraft, Electricity, and Wrong Incentives: Evidence from Mexico by Vicente Ruiz⇤ Last version: January 2016 Abstract Groundwater overdraft is threatening the sustainability of an increasing number of aquifers in Mexico. The excessive amount of groundwater ex- tracted by irrigation farming has significantly contributed to this problem. The objective of this paper is to analyse the effect of changes in ground- water price over the allocation of different production inputs. I model the technology of producers facing groundwater overdraft through a Translog cost function and using a combination of multiple micro-data sources. My results show that groundwater demand is inelastic, -0.54. Moreover, these results also show that both labour and fertiliser can act as substitutes for groundwater, further reacting to changes in groundwater price. JEL codes:Q12,Q25 Key words: Groundwater, Electricity, Subsidies, Mexico, Translog Cost ⇤Université Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris School of Economics (PSE). Centre d’Économie de la Sorbonne, 106-112 Boulevard de l’Hopital, 75647, Paris Cedex 13, France. Email: [email protected] Introduction The high rate of groundwater extraction in Mexico is threatening the sustainability of an increasing number of aquifers in the country. Today in Mexico 1 out of 6aquifersisconsideredtobeoverexploited(CONAGUA, 2010). Groundwater overdraft is not only an important cause of major environmental problems, but it also has a direct impact on economic activities and the wellbeing of a high share of the population.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology, Groundwater Seepage, Nitrate Distribution, and Flux at the Raleigh Hydrogeologic Research Station, Wake County, North Carolina, 2005–2007
    Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Hydrogeology, Groundwater Seepage, Nitrate Distribution, and Flux at the Raleigh Hydrogeologic Research Station, Wake County, North Carolina, 2005–2007 Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5041 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photograph. Neuse River at USGS streamgaging station 0208739677 below SR2555 near Auburn on the Raleigh hydrogeologic research station, Wake County, North Carolina. Photo by Kristen Bukowski McSwain, U.S. Geological Survey. Hydrogeology , Groundwater Seepage, Nitrate Distribution, and Flux at the Raleigh Hydrogeologic Research Station, Wake County, North Carolina, 2005–2007 By Kristen Bukowski McSwain, Richard E. Bolich, and Melinda J. Chapman Prepared in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5041 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution
    PUBLICATION 8084 FWQP REFERENCE SHEET 11.2 Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution THOMAS HARTER is UC Cooperative Extension Hydrogeology Specialist, University of California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center. roundwater quality comprises the physical, chemical, and biological qualities of UNIVERSITY OF G ground water. Temperature, turbidity, color, taste, and odor make up the list of physi- CALIFORNIA cal water quality parameters. Since most ground water is colorless, odorless, and Division of Agriculture without specific taste, we are typically most concerned with its chemical and biologi- and Natural Resources cal qualities. Although spring water or groundwater products are often sold as “pure,” http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu their water quality is different from that of pure water. In partnership with Naturally, ground water contains mineral ions. These ions slowly dissolve from soil particles, sediments, and rocks as the water travels along mineral surfaces in the pores or fractures of the unsaturated zone and the aquifer. They are referred to as dis- solved solids. Some dissolved solids may have originated in the precipitation water or river water that recharges the aquifer. A list of the dissolved solids in any water is long, but it can be divided into three groups: major constituents, minor constituents, and trace elements (Table 1). The http://www.nrcs.usda.gov total mass of dissolved constituents is referred to as the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. In water, all of the dissolved solids are either positively charged ions Farm Water (cations) or negatively charged ions (anions). The total negative charge of the anions always equals the total positive charge of the cations.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Soils A,\?) Saprolites from the Piedmont Region for M7aste Disposal Purposes
    CHARACTERIZATION OF SOILS A,\?) SAPROLITES FROM THE PIEDMONT REGION FOR M7ASTE DISPOSAL PURPOSES Aziz Amoozegar, Philip J. Schoeneberger , and Michael J. Vepraskas Soil Science Department Agricultural Research Service College of Agriculture and Life Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7619 The activities on which this report is based were financed in part by the United States Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, through the Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina. Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States Government. Also, the use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service of the products named nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned. Agreement No. 14-08-0001-G1580 UWProject Number 70091 USGS Project No. 02(FY88) ACKNOWLEDGMENT Special recognition should be given to Ms. Barbara Pitman, former Agricultural Research Technician, Soil Science Department, who devoted long hours conducting the laboratory solute flow experiments and assisted with other field and laboratory investigations in this project. Thanks to Mr. Stewart J. Starr, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, for providing land on Unit 1 Research Farm and for his patience with our research program. Appreciation is extended to Mr. Kevin Martin, president of Soil and Environmental Consultants, for his assistance in locating research sites, and to Mr. J. B. Hunt (Oak City Realty) and Mr. S. Dorsett (Dorsett and Associates) for allowing our research team to collect soil samples and conduct research on properties located in Franklin and Orange Counties, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeochemical and Metabolic Responses to the Flood Pulse in a Semi-Arid Floodplain
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@USU 1 Running Head: Semi-arid floodplain response to flood pulse 2 3 4 5 6 Biogeochemical and Metabolic Responses 7 to the Flood Pulse in a Semi-Arid Floodplain 8 9 10 11 with 7 Figures and 3 Tables 12 13 14 15 H. M. Valett1, M.A. Baker2, J.A. Morrice3, C.S. Crawford, 16 M.C. Molles, Jr., C.N. Dahm, D.L. Moyer4, J.R. Thibault, and Lisa M. Ellis 17 18 19 20 21 22 Department of Biology 23 University of New Mexico 24 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 USA 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 present addresses: 32 33 1Department of Biology 2Department of Biology 3U.S. EPA 34 Virginia Tech Utah State University Mid-Continent Ecology Division 35 Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA Logan, Utah 84322 USA Duluth, Minnesota 55804 USA 36 540-231-2065, 540-231-9307 fax 37 [email protected] 38 4Water Resources Division 39 United States Geological Survey 40 Richmond, Virginia 23228 USA 41 1 1 Abstract: Flood pulse inundation of riparian forests alters rates of nutrient retention and 2 organic matter processing in the aquatic ecosystems formed in the forest interior. Along the 3 Middle Rio Grande (New Mexico, USA), impoundment and levee construction have created 4 riparian forests that differ in their inter-flood intervals (IFIs) because some floodplains are 5 still regularly inundated by the flood pulse (i.e., connected), while other floodplains remain 6 isolated from flooding (i.e., disconnected).
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Groundwater Recharge for the State of Minnesota Using the Soil-Water-Balance Model, 1996–2010
    Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Potential Groundwater Recharge for the State of Minnesota Using the Soil-Water-Balance Model, 1996–2010 Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Map showing mean annual potential recharge rates from 1996−2010 based on results from the Soil-Water-Balance model for Minnesota. Potential Groundwater Recharge for the State of Minnesota Using the Soil-Water- Balance Model, 1996–2010 By Erik A. Smith and Stephen M. Westenbroek Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5038 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Smith, E.A., and Westenbroek, S.M., 2015, Potential groundwater recharge for the State of Minnesota using the Soil-Water-Balance model, 1996–2010: U.S.
    [Show full text]