Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20135166

Developing and implementing the use of predictive models for estimating water quality at Great Lakes beaches

Abstract

Predictive models have been used at beaches to improve the timeliness and accuracy of recreational water-quality assessments over the most common current approach to water-quality monitoring, which relies on culturing fecal-indicator bacteria such as Escherichia coli (E. coli.) . Beach-specific predictive models use environmental and water-quality variables that are easily and quickly measured as surrogates to estimate concentrations of fecal-indicator bacteria or to provide the probability that a State recreational water-quality standard will be exceeded. When predictive models are used for beach closure or advisory decisions, they are referred to as “nowcasts.” During the recreational seasons of 2010-12, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 23 local and State agencies, worked to improve existing nowcasts at 4 beaches, validate predictive models at another 38 beaches, and collect data for predictive-model development at 7 beaches throughout the Great Lakes. This report summarizes efforts to collect data and develop predictive models by multiple agencies and to compile existing information on the beaches and beach-monitoring programs into one comprehensive report. Local agencies measured E. coli concentrations and variables expected to affect E. coli concentrations such as wave height, turbidity, water temperature, and numbers of birds at the time of sampling. In addition to these field measurements, equipment was installed by the USGS or local agencies at or near several beaches to collect water-quality and metrological measurements in near real time, including nearshore buoys, weather stations, and tributary staff gages and monitors. The USGS worked with local agencies to retrieve data from existing sources either manually or by use of tools designed specifically to compile and process data for predictive-model development. Predictive models were developed by use of linear regression and (or) partial least squares techniques for 42 beaches that had at least 2 years of data (2010-11 and sometimes earlier) and for 1 beach that had 1 year of data. For most models, software designed for model development by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Virtual Beach) was used. The selected model for each beach was based on a combination of explanatory variables including, most commonly, turbidity, day of the year, change in lake level over 24 hours, wave height, wind direction and speed, and antecedent rainfall for various time periods. Forty-two predictive models were validated against data collected during an independent year (2012) and compared to the current method for assessing recreational water quality-using the previous day’s E. coli concentration (persistence model). Goals for good predictive-model performance were responses that were at least 5 percent greater than the persistence model and overall correct responses greater than or equal to 80 percent, sensitivities (percentage of exceedances of the bathing-water standard that were correctly predicted by the model) greater than or equal to 50 percent, and specificities (percentage of nonexceedances correctly predicted by the model) greater than or equal to 85 percent. Out of 42 predictive models, 24 models yielded over-all correct responses that were at least 5 percent greater than the use of the persistence model. Predictive-model responses met the performance goals more often than the persistence-model responses in terms of overall correctness (28 versus 17 models, respectively), sensitivity (17 versus 4 models), and specificity (34 versus 25 models). Gaining knowledge of each beach and the factors that affect E. coli concentrations is important for developing good predictive models. Collection of additional years of data with a wide range of environmental conditions may also help to improve future model performance. The USGS will continue to work with local agencies in 2013 and beyond to develop and validate predictive models at beaches and improve existing nowcasts, restructuring monitoring activities to accommodate future uncertainties in funding and resources.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 41.25° to 49.12° latitude; -92.33° to -75.73° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Donna S. Francy, Amie M. G. Brady, Rebecca B. Carvin, Steven R. Corsi, Lori M. Fuller, John H. Harrison, Brett A. Hayhurst, Jeremiah Lant, Meredith B. Nevers, Paul J. Terrio, Tammy M. Zimmerman. 2013. Developing and implementing the use of predictive models for estimating water quality at Great Lakes beaches. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20135166

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗