Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · pp1672

Surface-water hydrology of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in South-Central Louisiana, 1996-99

Abstract

The flow of freshwater and suspended sediment from the Lower Atchafalaya River (LAR) and Wax Lake Outlet (WLO) into and along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and selected adjacent surface-water bodies between Cypremort and Larose in south-central Louisiana, from October 1996 to December 1999, was characterized using instantaneous and computed continuous discharge measurements and measurements of suspended- sediment concentrations. The GIWW parallels the entire Louisiana coast near the wetland/ upland interface. Following natural hydraulic gradients, the GIWW captures water and sediment from the southward flowing LAR and the WLO where it crosses those waterways, and distributes this freshwater and sediment to points east and west. East of Morgan City, La., an average of 12,200 ft3/s (cubic feet per second) of water flowed from the LAR into the Avoca Island Cutoff Channel. The LAR was the primary source of water to the GIWW east of Morgan City. Drainage from the Verret Subbasin through Bayou Boeuf contributed an average of 1,000 ft3/s to the eastward flow in the GIWW. Eastward flow in the GIWW near Bay Wallace east of Morgan City and to the west of the Houma Navigation Canal (HNC) at Houma, La., averaged about 5,700 ft3/s. Average flow in the GIWW east of the HNC at Houma was 2,610 ft3/s to the east, and 2,200 ft3/s east of Bayou Lafourche at Larose, also to the east. Measured discharge in the GIWW was always to the west between the LAR and WLO. Water entered this stretch of the GIWW from the LAR. The WLO was the primary source of water to the GIWW west of WLO. Discharge in the GIWW averaged 9,460 ft3/s west of WLO south of Calumet and 8,230 ft3/s east of Jaws Bay west of Franklin. Average discharge in the GIWW west of Jaws Bay near Cypremort was 3,310 ft3/s and at Cypremort was 1,350 ft3/s. Average discharge was to the west at all four locations, but discharge as high as 2,830 ft3/s was measured flowing eastward toward Jaws Bay in the GIWW at Cypremort. In bayous and canals in most of coastal Louisiana, including the GIWW, stage narrowly fluctuates around the Gulf of Mexico level. Where the GIWW crosses the LAR and WLO, stage can reach 3 ft (feet) or more above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Flow in the GIWW results from these differences in stage. When the LAR at Morgan City reached 3 to 4 ft above NAVD88, flow in the GIWW became more predictable. Discharge at most sites between the HNC and Jaws Bay increased in varying amounts as stage of the LAR at Morgan City increased beyond 3 ft above NAVD88. At sites in the GIWW east of HNC, discharge did not increase predictably. For all measurements made when the LAR at Morgan City was 3 ft or more above NAVD88, average discharge was about 3,100 ft3/s in the GIWW east of HNC at Houma and 2,880 ft3/s east of Bayou Lafourche at Larose. The LAR at Morgan City is 3 ft or more above NAVD88 for about 7 months in a normal year. When the LAR at Morgan City was less than 3 ft above NAVD88, water in the GIWW flowed along the prevailing water-level gradients, to the east between Bay Wallace and the HNC and to the west between WLO and Jaws Bay. However, local runoff and drainage from areas adjacent to the GIWW became more significant in maintaining flow at low LAR stage. Discharge was consistently higher in the GIWW west of the HNC at Houma than farther west near Bay Wallace east of Morgan City, when the LAR at Morgan City was less than 3 ft above NAVD88. Westward flow in the GIWW between Houma and Morgan City was observed near Bay Wallace east of Morgan City but was never observed west of the HNC at Houma. Discharge in the GIWW east of Jaws Bay west of Franklin, La., frequently was higher than in the GIWW west of WLO south of Calumet, La., at low LAR stage. East of the LAR, suspended-sediment concentrations averaged about 162 mg/L (milligrams per liter) at the two sites closest to the LAR, Avoca Island Cutoff Channel and Bayou Penchant south of Morgan Ci

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Christopher M. Swarzenski. 2003. Surface-water hydrology of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in South-Central Louisiana, 1996-99. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1672

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Allostratigraphy and formalizing the Cold Harbor Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

Introduction Distinct morphologic features in the Virginia part of the Coastal Plain Province (herein referred to as the Virginia Coastal Plain) were noted in one of the earliest geologic surveys in 1839 (Rogers, 1884). South of the James River, Rogers (1884, p. 252) described a western bench that ranged from “a low rocky coast…of the primeval sea” to an eastern facing scarp east of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. His eastern bench extended from the scarp at Suffolk, which he suggested was a former shoreline, to the present Atlantic Ocean. Notably, the eastern plain was described as less dissected than the western plain. In Virginia, creation and publication of topographic maps by the U. S. Geological Survey began in the mid-1880s. By 1905, many areas in eastern Virginia were mapped as 30-minute and 15-minute series with 10-foot (ft) contour interval accuracy (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources [VDMR] , 2008). After the continued release of these early maps that displayed Virginia Coastal Plain morphology in increasingly greater detail, several geological reports were published where scarps and plains were traced, named, and origins proposed (Shaler, 1890; Shattuck, 1901; Clark and Miller, 1906, 1912; Wentworth, 1930). Shattuck (1901) recognized three continuous scarps in Maryland and most importantly suggested that there was a correlation between surficial deposits (geologic formations) and morphologic terraces; this defined the terrace-formation concept that became the basis of geologic mapping of the Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments in the Virginia Coastal Plain. Clark and Miller (1912) described three Pleistocene formations and supported the terrace-formation concept because the sediments within each formation were lithologically similar to one another, and differentiating them by comparing key vertical sections was not helpful. In Virginia, Wentworth (1930) defined and mapped five Pleistocene terraces on the basis of correlating morphologic terraces with their underlying formation sediments. Similarly, Cooke (1931) identified and traced seven marine shorelines and proposed corresponding terrace names from Maryland to Florida. Cooke (1931) also pointed out that the various elevations of scarps were related to interglacial sea-level highstands whereas prior workers called on vertical land movement of emergence and submergence to create shoreline scarps. Cooke’s (1936) geologic map of eastern South Carolina showing the Pleistocene sediments is also based on the terrace-formation concept. Detailed geologic mapping of the Virginia Coastal Plain by Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) followed lithostratigraphic convention for Early Pliocene and older marine sediments. However, geologic mapping of Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments used the concept of morphologic setting and elevations of scarp toe and flat-plain, or the terrace-formation concept. The 1983 version of the North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter the Code) (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN] , 1983) introduced allostratigraphy that gave credence to the terrace-formation concept. According to the current Code (NACSN, 2021; Article 58), “an allostratigraphic unit is a mappable body of rock that is defined and identified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities,” and, “formal allostratigraphic units may be defined or distinguish between different (1) superposed discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, (2) contiguous discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, or (3) geographically separated discontinuity-bounded units of similar lithology…The lithology of an allostratigraphic unit plays no part in its definition.” However, definition and placement of bounding discontinuities relies on lateral and vertical knowledge of lithology and is so recognized in Article 58e, “A type locality and type area must be designated; a composite stratotype or a type section and several reference sections are desirable.” We understand that each of the terrace formations of Late Pliocene and Pleistocene age were deposited during a marine transgressive event tied to an interglacial sea-level highstand (scarp above the Poquoson Member of the Tabb Formation may be the result of a still-stand as sea level was falling after deposition of the Lynnhaven Member, refer to fig. 1). The base of each map unit is an unconformity (or is at least in part for the base of the Poquoson) and nomenclature for each unit might be changed from “formation” to “alloformation,” as suggested by Doar and Berquist (2009). Figure 1 shows the relative placement of these mapped and named alloformations as used in the Virginia Coastal Plain and Fall Zone (a zone of transition between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces) (Berquist, 2021). Except perhaps for the Poquoson, many of these proposed alloformations are unlikely to interfinger or grade laterally seaward into extensive deep marine sediments. After their deposition, erosion during sea-level fall and then rise for the next depositional event would seemingly obliterate any marine connection without a basal unconformity. All these alloformations contain sediments deposited in fluvial, estuarine, and shallow-marine environments and are bound everywhere by unconformities. This paper documents the Cold Harbor Alloformation as a formal stratigraphic unit and the rationale for mapping the sediments using an allostratigraphic classification. The Cold Harbor Alloformation is composed of sediments from a variety of environments such as gravel beds, shoreline beach sands, marsh and estuarine sand and mud, and shallow marine sands. These sediments are found at elevations up to 240 ft and lie unconformably above older sediments and rocks. Our work relied on observations of outcrops and many auger borings to identify basal unconformities.

Professional Paper↗

Formalization of the Elsing Green Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

The Elsing Green Alloformation is herein formalized as a new Pleistocene alloformation in the Virginia Coastal Plain. This allostratigraphic unit is characterized by an unconformity-bounded terrace deposit occupying a morphologic flat with a mapped elevation range of about 26 to 38 feet (7.9 to 11.6 meters); its landward extent is commonly marked at the base of an erosional scarp where the toe is typically at 38 feet (11.6 meters) and is distinguished by its topographic expression and stratigraphic position. Sediments of this unit were previously mapped as part of the Shirley Formation or Sedgefield Member of the Tabb Formation but differ significantly in their bounding scarps and terrace morphology. The type area is within the Tunstall 7.5-minute quadrangle near Elsing Green Plantation, King William County, Virginia. The reference section is provided by boring 2012270-2. Correlation is proposed with other mid-Pleistocene terrace deposits in the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, including the younger Lynch Heights Formation of Delaware and the Butlers Bluff Member of the Nassawadox Formation of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The age of the Elsing Green Alloformation is interpreted to be Marine Isotope Stage 9e (about 330,000 years).

Professional Paper↗

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗