Flood-inundation maps for the Yellow River from River Drive to Centerville Highway, Gwinnett County, Georgia

Jonathan W. Musser

doi:10.3133/sir20195009

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20195009

Flood-inundation maps for the Yellow River from River Drive to Centerville Highway, Gwinnett County, Georgia

Jonathan W. Musser

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 16.4-mile reach of the Yellow River in Gwinnett County, Georgia, from 0.5 mile upstream from River Drive to Centerville Highway (Georgia State Route 124) were developed to depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamgages in the mapped area. The maps for the 9.0-mile reach from 0.5 mile upstream from River Drive to Stone Mountain Highway (U.S. Route 78) are referenced to the streamgage Yellow River near Snellville, Ga. (station 02206500), and the maps for the 7.4-mile reach from Stone Mountain Highway to Centerville Highway are referenced to the streamgage Yellow River at Ga. 124, near Lithonia, Ga. (02207120). Real-time stage information from these streamgages can be used with these maps to estimate near real-time areas of inundation. The forecasted peak-stage information for the USGS streamgages Yellow River near Snellville, Ga. (02206500), and Yellow River at Ga. 124, near Lithonia, Ga. (02207120), can be used in conjunction with the maps developed for this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. A one-dimensional step-backwater model was developed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC–RAS) software for the Yellow River and was used to compute flood profiles for a 16.4-mile reach of the Yellow River. The hydraulic model was then used to simulate 16 water-surface profiles at 1.0-foot (ft) intervals at the Yellow River near Snellville streamgage and 17 water-surface profiles at 1.0-ft intervals at the Yellow River near Lithonia streamgage. At the Yellow River near Snellville streamgage, the profiles ranged from a stage of 18.0 ft, which is 819.1 ft above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), to a stage of 33.0 ft, which is 834.1 ft above NAVD 88. At the Yellow River near Lithonia streamgage, the profiles ranged from the National Weather Service action stage of 13.0 ft, which is 732.5 ft above NAVD 88, to a stage of 29.0 ft, which is 748.5 ft above NAVD 88. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model—derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data having a 5.0-ft horizontal resolution—to delineate the area flooded at each 1.0-ft interval of stream stage for both streamgages.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 33.75° to 33.9167° latitude; -84.1667° to -84° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jonathan W. Musser. 2019-03-13. Flood-inundation maps for the Yellow River from River Drive to Centerville Highway, Gwinnett County, Georgia. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195009

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗