Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · sir20265033

Flood-inundation maps of the Blue River and major tributaries in and near Kansas City, Missouri, 2023–25

Abstract

Digital flood-inundation maps for 35.5 miles of the Blue River, in and near Kansas City, Missouri, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Kansas City. Maps were also developed for a combined 7.3 miles of Brush Creek (4.4 miles) and Indian Creek (2.9 miles), two primary tributaries to the Blue River in the study reach. The flood-inundation maps, available through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Program website at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding, depth of water above first-floor elevations in selected buildings, water velocity, water-surface elevations, and time of travel corresponding to selected water levels or gage heights (hereafter referred to as “stages”) at nine reference USGS streamgages—five on the Blue River (USGS station numbers 06893590, 06893578, 06893500, 06893150, and 06893100), two on Brush Creek (USGS station numbers 06893562 and 06893557), one on Indian Creek (USGS station number 06893390), and one on the Missouri River (USGS station number 06893000). Near-real-time stages at these streamgages may be obtained from USGS Water Data for the Nation at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN or the National Weather Service National Water Prediction Service at http://water.noaa.gov/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at seven of these sites (USGS station numbers 06893000, 06893590, 06893578, 06893500, 06893150, 06893557, and 06893390). Flood profiles were computed for eight map reaches by means of two-dimensional hydraulic models. The models were calibrated using the USGS-developed stage–streamflow relations at each reference streamgage. Two map reaches on the lower Blue River also include the effects of backwater from the Missouri River on flood inundation extent and hydraulic characteristics. The hydraulic models were used to compute water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datums. The profile stages ranged from the National Weather Service “Action Stage” or near bankfull to a stage exceeding the highest recorded water level at each streamgage. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a digital elevation model (derived from light detection and ranging data having a nonvegetated vertical accuracy of a maximum 10-centimeter root-mean-square error) to delineate the area flooded at each water level and the associated hydraulic characteristics. The availability of these maps, along with information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage and forecasted high-flow stages from the National Weather Service, will provide emergency management personnel, resource managers, and residents with information that could be critical for flood-response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for postflood recovery efforts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

David C. Heimann, Charles V. Cigrand, Jason L. High, Robert P. Kostynick, Allison A. Atkinson, Paul H. Rydlund. 2026-06-23. Flood-inundation maps of the Blue River and major tributaries in and near Kansas City, Missouri, 2023–25. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20265033

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Methodology for quantitative spatial sensitivity analysis of volcanic geodetic networks

Introduction This report introduces a methodology for assessing the state of the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Observatories’ geodetic monitoring networks that measure how volcanoes deform or change shape. This new method uses a model-based approach that considers the uniqueness of the instrument environments at each volcano. This report focuses on simplified volcanic sources, is independent of the shape or size of the volcano, or the network geometry, and thus highlights the strengths and potential vulnerabilities of each volcano’s geodetic network in an actionable visual format. This analysis can help observatories to make informed decisions about whether volcanoes have an adequate level of geodetic monitoring and indicate where improvements are needed.

Lassen Peak, Mount Shasta

Assessment of water chemistry of the Coconino aquifer in northeastern Arizona

The Coconino aquifer was investigated as a potential groundwater resource for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation in northeastern Arizona. Basic groundwater chemistry, including major ions, total dissolved solids, and selected trace metal concentrations, are presented and analyzed to characterize the Coconino aquifer. The geochemical compositions of groundwater are associated with changes in geology and groundwater movement and are compared to drinking-water standards to determine suitable areas for potential groundwater resource development. Dissolved-solids concentrations in much of the Coconino aquifer water were higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s secondary drinking-water standard of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) due to a buried halite body in the southeastern part of the study area. However, trace metal concentrations were generally low. Groundwater may need to be treated for high dissolved-solids concentrations before it is suitable for use as a resource for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation.

Arizona

Water-resources inventory and assessment at Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, prepared a water-resources inventory and assessment for Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument (KAWW). This compilation includes published and publicly accessible hydrologic data and resource assessments of streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, and groundwater in and near KAWW. It also includes reports and datasets summarizing attributes of KAWW’s hydrologic infrastructure, such as stream crossings, dams, wastewater discharge plants, groundwater monitoring wells, and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. Descriptions of data and details of current limitations in available datasets are included. Wetland, groundwater, streamflow, and water-quality information are all limited. Hydrography data are available; however, there are limited ground-truth data. Accurate streamlines within KAWW were developed from light detection and ranging (lidar) as a part of this work. Hydrologic infrastructure information is available from multiple sources; however, differences exist among the datasets. Datasets are summarized in appendix 1.

Maine