SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Weather and Forecasting”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

USGS2016

Flood inundation maps for the Wabash River at New Harmony, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 3.68-mile reach of the Wabash River extending 1.77 miles upstream and 1.91 miles downstream from streamgage 03378500 at New Harmony, Indiana, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage at Wabash River at New Harmony, Ind. (station 03378500). Near-real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site (NHRI3). Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the most current stage-discharge relations at the Wabash River at New Harmony, Ind., streamgage and the documented high-water marks from the flood of April 27–28, 2013. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to compute 17 water-surface profiles for flood stages at approximately 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from 10.0 feet, or near bankfull, to 25.4 feet, the highest stage of the stage-discharge rating curve used in the model. 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 0.98-ft vertical accuracy and 4.9-ft horizontal resolution) to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps along with Internet information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage at Wabash River at New Harmony, Ind., and forecasted stream stages from the NWS will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Indiana↗

USGS2019

Flood-inundation maps of the Meramec River from Eureka to Arnold, Missouri, 2018

Libraries of digital flood-inundation maps that spanned a combined 37.2-mile reach of the Meramec River that extended upstream from Eureka, Missouri, to downstream near the confluence of the Meramec and Mississippi Rivers were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Missouri Department of Transportation, Missouri American Water, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 7, and the cities of Pacific, Eureka, Wildwood, and Arnold. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science website at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the cooperative USGS streamgages for the Meramec River near Eureka, Mo. (USGS station 07019000), the Meramec River at Valley Park, Mo. (USGS station 07019130), the Meramec River at Fenton, Mo. (USGS station 07019210), and the Meramec River at Arnold, Mo. (USGS station 07019300). Near-real-time stage data at these streamgages may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at https://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at these sites (listed as NWS sites erkm7, vllm7, fnnm7, and arnm7, respectively). Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a calibrated one-dimensional step-backwater hydraulic model. The model was calibrated using a stage-discharge relation at the Meramec River near Eureka, Mo., streamgage (USGS station 07019000) and documented high-water marks from the flood of December 2015 through January 2016. The calibrated hydraulic model was used to compute water-surface profiles: 1 set for the Meramec River near Eureka, Mo., streamgage (USGS station 07019000); 1 set for the Meramec River at Valley Park, Mo., streamgage (USGS station 07019130); 7 sets for the Meramec River at Fenton, Mo., streamgage (USGS station 07019210) for a range of Mississippi River conditions; and 8 sets for the Meramec River at Arnold, Mo., streamgage (USGS station 07019300) for a range of Mississippi River conditions. The water-surface profiles were produced for stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the datum from each streamgage and ranging from the NWS action stage, or near bankfull discharge, to the stage corresponding to the estimated 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability (500-year recurrence interval) flood, as determined at the Meramec River near Eureka, Mo., streamgage (USGS station 07019000). The simulated water-surface profiles then were combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model (derived from light detection and ranging data having a 0.28-ft vertical accuracy and 3.28-ft horizontal resolution) to delineate the area flooded at each simulated 1-ft stage increment. Previously published flood-inundation maps were updated and incorporated in the flood map libraries for USGS stations 07019130 and 07019210 to complete the map sets corresponding to eight Mississippi River conditions. The availability of these maps, along with internet information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgages and forecasted high-flow stages from the NWS, will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures and for postflood recovery efforts.

Missouri↗

USGS2019

Flood-inundation maps for the Iowa River at the Meskwaki Settlement in Iowa, 2019

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 9.3-mile reach of the Iowa River along the Meskwaki Settlement, Iowa, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science website at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage 05451770 on the Iowa River at County Highway E49 near Tama, Iowa. Near-real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained on the internet from the USGS National Water Information System at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at https://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site. Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a calibrated one-dimensional and two-dimensional step-backwater hydraulic model. The model was calibrated by using the current stage-discharge relation at the USGS streamgage 05451770 on the Iowa River at County Highway E49 near Tama, Iowa, and stage and discharge data from historic flooding events that were recorded at the streamgage. The hydraulic model was then used to compute eight water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from the NWS “action stage” of 11 feet (ft) to 18 ft, the stage exceeding the estimated 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability (500-year recurrence interval) flood, as determined at the USGS streamgage 05451770. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model to delineate the area flooded at each flood stage (water level). In addition, potential modifications to hydraulic structures within the flood plain were modeled so any effects from the potential modifications could be evaluated. Four comparison points, which were along the flood plain, showed little to no change (less than 0.1 ft) in flood elevation from the existing conditions within the flood plain for the 11- to 16-ft stages as referenced to the USGS streamgage 05451770. There were greater changes (more than 0.1 ft) in flood elevation for the 2 comparison points that were closest to the modified hydraulic structure for the 2 highest modeled stages of 17 and 18 ft. The availability of these maps, along with internet information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage and forecasted high-flow stages from the NWS, will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood-response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for postflood recovery efforts.

Iowa↗

USGS2008

Using climate information for fuels management

Climate has come to the forefront of wildfire discussions in recent years as research contributes to the general understanding of how climate influences fuels availability to burn, the occurrence of severe fire weather conditions and other wildfire parameters. This understanding has crossed over into wildfire management applications through the creation of tools like climate forecasts for wildfire and drought indices, which are now widely used in wildfire suppression and mitigation planning. The overall question is how can climate information help fire managers meet management objectives? Climate underlies weather. For example, a number of days could be generally wet, but that may occur in the context of a two-year overall drought. Knowing the baseline climate is not only critical to preventing escaped prescribed fires, but also how it may affect fire behavior, fire effects and whether or not fire managers will meet their fuels management objectives. Thus, for fire managers to use prescribed and WFU fire safely and effectively, and to minimize the number of escaped fires and conversions to suppression, they need to understand how current climate conditions will impact the use of fire. One example is the need to use prescribed fire under set “burn windows”. Since meteorological conditions vary considerably from year to year for a given day, fire managers will be more successful in utilizing burn windows effectively if they understand those climate thresholds conducive to an increased number of safe burn windows, and are able to predict and take advantage of those burn windows. While climate and wildfire has been studied extensively, climate and fire use has not. The initial goal of this project was to assess how climate impacts prescribed fire use in a more general sense. After a preliminary informal survey in the spring of 2003, we determined that 1) there is insufficient data (less than 10 years) to conduct empirical correlative studies similar to those of the relationships between climate and wildfire (e.g., Swetnam and Betancourt 1990), and 2) prescribed fire policy has many regulations that potentially inhibited the use of climate information for decision-making. It was also determined that because fire use is a human decision, it would be more informative to ask fire managers themselves how climate impacts fire use through their decision-making processes, and whether or not they use climate information for prescribed fire. The first task for this project was to complete a regional survey of prescribed fire managers in California and Nevada. During the second phase of the project, additional prescribed fire managers were surveyed across the country. During the third year a second survey of WFU managers was completed. The goals of these inquiries were to determine: 1) If fire managers use climate information for fuels management; 2) The perspective fire managers have towards climate affecting fuels management; 3) Determine any obstacles that make it difficult to use climate information for fuels management; and 4) Determine climate information managers need to help them make better decisions for fire use.

Climate Ecosystem Fire Applications↗

USGS2011

Compilation of watershed models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010, and identification of watersheds for future modeling for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

As part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) during 2009–10, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) compiled a list of existing watershed models that had been created for tributaries within the United States that drain to the Great Lakes. Established Federal programs that are overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are responsible for most of the existing watershed models for specific tributaries. The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) uses the Large Basin Runoff Model to provide data for the management of water levels in the Great Lakes by estimating United States and Canadian inflows to the Great Lakes from 121 large watersheds. GLERL also simulates streamflows in 34 U.S. watersheds by a grid-based model, the Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model. The NOAA National Weather Service uses the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting model to predict flows at river forecast sites. The USACE created or funded the creation of models for at least 30 tributaries to the Great Lakes to better understand sediment erosion, transport, and aggradation processes that affect Federal navigation channels and harbors. Many of the USACE hydrologic models have been coupled with hydrodynamic and sediment-transport models that simulate the processes in the stream and harbor near the mouth of the modeled tributary. Some models either have been applied or have the capability of being applied across the entire Great Lakes Basin; they are (1) the SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model, which was developed by the USGS; (2) the High Impact Targeting (HIT) and Digital Watershed models, which were developed by the Institute of Water Research at Michigan State University; (3) the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L–THIA) model, which was developed by researchers at Purdue University; and (4) the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model, which was developed by the National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. During 2010, the USGS used the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) to create a hydrologic model for the Lake Michigan Basin to assess the probable effects of climate change on future groundwater and surface-water resources. The Water Availability Tool for Environmental Resources (WATER) model and the Analysis of Flows In Networks of CHannels (AFINCH) program also were used to support USGS GLRI projects that required estimates of streamflows throughout the Great Lakes Basin. This information on existing watershed models, along with an assessment of geologic, soils, and land-use data across the Great Lakes Basin and the identification of problems that exist in selected tributary watersheds that could be addressed by a watershed model, was used to identify three watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin for future modeling by the USGS. These watersheds are the Kalamazoo River Basin in Michigan, the Tonawanda Creek Basin in New York, and the Bad River Basin in Wisconsin. These candidate watersheds have hydrogeologic, land-type, and soil characteristics that make them distinct from each other, but that are representative of other tributary watersheds within the Great Lakes Basin. These similarities in the characteristics among nearby watersheds will enhance the usefulness of a model by improving the likelihood that parameter values from a previously modeled watershed could reliably be used in the creation of a model of another watershed in the same region. The software program Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) was selected to simulate the hydrologic, sedimentary, and water-quality processes in these selected watersheds. HSPF is a versatile, process-based, continuous-simulation model that has been used extensively by the scientific community, has the ongoing technical support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USGS, and provides a means to evaluate the effects that land-use changes or management practices might have on the simulated processes.

Great Lakes Basin↗

USGS2016

Flood-inundation maps for the East Fork White River at Shoals, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 5.9-mile reach of the East Fork White River at Shoals, Indiana (Ind.), were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage on the East Fork White River at Shoals, Ind. (USGS station number 03373500). Near-real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained on the Internet from the USGS National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site (NWS AHPS site SHLI3). NWS AHPS forecast peak stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. Flood profiles were computed for the East Fork White River reach by means of a one-dimensional, step-backwater model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the current stage-discharge relation (USGS rating no. 43.0) at USGS streamgage 03373500, East Fork White River at Shoals, Ind. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to compute 26 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from approximately bankfull (10 ft) to the highest stage of the current stage-discharge rating curve (35 ft). The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system (GIS) digital elevation model (DEM), derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data, to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The areal extent of the 24-ft flood-inundation map was verified with photographs from a flood event on July 20, 2015. The availability of these maps, along with information on the Internet regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage at East Fork White River at Shoals, Ind., and forecasted stream stages from the NWS AHPS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Indiana↗

USGS2018

Development of a hydraulic model and flood-inundation maps for the Wabash River near the Interstate 64 Bridge near Grayville, Illinois

A two-dimensional hydraulic model and digital flood‑inundation maps were developed for a 30-mile reach of the Wabash River near the Interstate 64 Bridge near Grayville, Illinois. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Flood Inundation Mapping Science web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage on the Wabash River at Mount Carmel, Ill (USGS station number 03377500). Near-real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained on the internet from the USGS National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site (NWS AHPS site MCRI2). The NWS AHPS forecasts peak stage information that may be used with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. Flood elevations were computed for the Wabash River reach by means of a two-dimensional, finite-volume numerical modeling application for river hydraulics. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using global positioning system measurements of water-surface elevation and the current stage-discharge relation at both USGS streamgage 03377500, Wabash River at Mount Carmel, Ill., and USGS streamgage 03378500, Wabash River at New Harmony, Indiana. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to compute 27 water-surface elevations for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from less than the action stage (9 ft) to the highest stage (35 ft) of the current stage-discharge rating curve. The simulated water‑surface elevations were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model, derived from light detection and ranging data, to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with information on the internet regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage at Mount Carmel, Ill., and forecasted stream stages from the NWS AHPS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood-response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for postflood recovery efforts.

Illinois↗

USGS2018

Flood-inundation maps for the North Fork Kentucky River at Hazard, Kentucky

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 7.1-mile reach of the North Fork Kentucky River at Hazard, Kentucky (Ky.), were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Kentucky Silver Jackets and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science website at https://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage on the North Fork Kentucky River at Hazard, Ky. (USGS station number 03277500). Near-real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained on the internet from the USGS National Water Information System at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) at https://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site (NWS AHPS site HAZK2). NWS AHPS forecast peak stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. Flood profiles were computed for the North Fork Kentucky River reach by means of a one-dimensional, step-backwater model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the current stage-discharge relation (USGS rating no. 24.0) at USGS streamgage 03277500, North Fork Kentucky River at Hazard, Ky. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to compute 26 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from approximately bankfull (14 ft) to the highest even-foot increment stage (39 ft) of the current stage-discharge rating curve. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model, derived from light detection and ranging data, to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with information on the internet regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage at North Fork Kentucky River at Hazard, Ky., and forecasted stream stages from the NWS AHPS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood-response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for postflood recovery efforts.

Kentucky↗

USGS2023

Under-forecasting wet avalanche cycles: Case studies and lessons learned from two wet avalanche cycles in northwest Montana and central Colorado

Predicting the timing and location of natural wet avalanche events is challenging, especially the release of wet slabs. In this study, we describe the existing snowpack structure, weather, and observed avalanche activity for two separate wet avalanche cycles in different avalanche climate types: northwest Montana and central Colorado. In both cases, the regional avalanche forecast centers initially predicted an avalanche hazard rating lower than the observed avalanche hazard and did not initially predict the occurrence of wet slab avalanches. Large wet slab avalanche activity began during the early stages of the first, rapid warming event of the season in both regions, challenging the notion that a lack of overnight refreeze is important for large wet avalanche cycles. This highlights the need for improvement in forecasting wet avalanche events/cycles. Here, we discuss lessons learned and operational strategies for improving forecast accuracy during significant melting events. These include focused field assessments in shallow snowpack areas and low elevation terrain, proactive late-day monitoring beyond normal field hours, and additional meteorological considerations, such as cloud cover and energy balance assessments, prior to and during notable warm-ups.

Colorado, Montana↗

USGS2017

Vertical datum conversion process for the inland and coastal gage network located in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic-Gulf hydrologic regions

Datum conversions from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 among inland and coastal gages throughout the hydrologic regions of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the South Atlantic-Gulf have implications among river and storm surge forecasting, general commerce, and water-control operations. The process of data conversions may involve the application of a recovered National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929–North American Vertical Datum of 1988 offset, a simplistic datum transformation using VDatum or VERTCON software, or a survey, depending on a gaging network datum evaluation, anticipated uncertainties for data use among the cooperative water community, and methods used to derive the conversion. Datum transformations from National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 using VERTCON purport errors of ± 0.13 foot at the 95 percent confidence level among modeled points, claiming more consistency along the east coast. Survey methods involving differential and trigonometric leveling, along with observations using Global Navigation Satellite System technology, afford a variety of approaches to establish or perpetuate a datum during a survey. Uncertainties among leveling approaches are generally < 0.1 foot, and and Global Navigation Satellite System approaches may be categorized with uncertainties of ≤0.1 foot for a Level I quality category and ≥0.1 foot for Level II or III quality categories (defined by the U.S. Geological Survey) by observation and review of experienced practice. The conversion process is initiated with an evaluation of the inland and coastal gage network datum, beginning with altitude datum components and the history of those components queried through the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Site Inventory database. Subsequent edits to the Groundwater Site Inventory database may be required and a consensus reached among the U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Centers to identify the outstanding workload categorized as in-office datum transformations or offset applications versus out-of-office survey efforts. Datum conversions or datum establishment for the inland or coastal gaging network should meet datum uncertainty requirements among other Federal agencies. Datum uncertainty requirements are ±0.25 foot for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water-control or construction projects and ±0.16 foot for Federal Emergency Management Agency field surveys and checkpoint surveys used for mapping. River level forecasts generally are defined as ± 0.10 foot among the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Weather Service. Collaboration and communication among the cooperative water community is necessary during a datum conversion or datum change. Datum notification time-change requirements set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Weather Service vary from 30 to 120 days, depending on datum conversion or datum-change case scenarios. Notification times associated with these case scenarios may be useful to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Weather Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, because their daily operations are time sensitive, unlike the notification time change requirements of other entities that make up the cooperative water community. At the time of this writing, a future geopotential datum resulting from Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum is anticipated in 2022. A future version of VDatum and VERTCON is anticipated to provide a transformation among North American Vertical Datum of 1988 elevations to the new geopotential datum.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS1997

1997 flood tracking chart for the Red River of the North basin

The flood tracking chart for the Red River of the North Basin can be used by local citizens and emergency response personnel to determine the latest river stage. By comparing the current stage (water-surface elevation above some datum) and predicted flood crest to the recorded peak stages of previous floods, emergency response personnel and residents can make informed decisions concerning the threat to life and property. The flood tracking chart shows a map of the basin with the location of major real-time streamflow-gaging stations in the basin. Click on a station in the map or in the list below the map. Streamflow and stage information for the last 7 days, current stage relative to recorded peak stages, and streamflow for the previous 18 months are provided in graphic form, along with information such as station location and length of record. The National Weather Service has direct access to all information collected by the USGS for use in their forecasting models and routinely broadcasts the forecast information to the news media and on shortwave radio. The radio frequencies are 162.400 MHz (megahertz) in Petersburg, N. Dak., and Detroit Lakes, Minn.; 162.425 MHz in Webster, N. Dak., and Bemidji, Minn.; 162.450 MHz in Roosevelt, Minn.; 162.475 MHz in Grand Forks and Amenia, N. Dak.; and 162.550 MHz in Thief River Falls, Minn. To use the flood tracking chart for a particular property, determine the approximate elevation of the threatened property and the elevation of the gaging station that is closest to the threatened property. For example, most people in Grand Forks, N. Dak., probably will use the Red River of the North at Grand Forks station. Record the flood elevation for the gaging station. Compare the flood elevation to the elevation of the property to immediately know if the property has an impending threat of flooding. One must be cautioned by the fact that the surface of flowing water is not flat but has a slope. Therefore, the water-surface elevation near a threatened property might not be the same as the river stages at the gaging stations. The network of river-gaging stations in the Red River of the North Basin is operated by the USGS in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the North Dakota State Water Commission, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Southeast Cass Water Resources District, the Cass County Joint Water Resource District, the Red River Joint Water Resource Board, and the Red River Watershed Management Board. For more information about USGS programs in North Dakota, contact the District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, North Dakota District, at (701) 250-7400.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2025

Mountain sentinels in a changing world: Review and conservation implications of weather and climate effects on mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus)

Climate change is occurring at an accelerated rate in high-elevation alpine and mountain ecosystems. Cold-adapted, mountain species are at risk due to forecasted change and knowledge is needed to respond to current and future conservation challenges. Mountain goats ( Oreamnos americanus ) are an iconic species of North American mountain cultures and landscapes, and due to specialized adaptations for life in cold, mountainous environments they are particularly sensitive to changes in weather and climate. As sentinels of change in alpine ecosystems, the study of mountain goats offers insight into the ecological effects and conservation challenges associated with climate change in these sensitive and biodiverse environments. Here, we synthesize existing knowledge about how climate change is expected to influence environmental conditions experienced by mountain goats and associated mechanistic changes to behavior, nutritional ecology, demography, health, and interspecific interactions. In many instances, climate change effects are likely to be negative and additive to existing threats (such as human disturbance, hunting, disease, predation) though benefits are expected in some cases. Changes in climate and mountain environments will necessitate re-examination and modification of population monitoring, management, and conservation strategies. Specifically, spatiotemporal (and other) aspects of monitoring and management may need to be adjusted to accommodate emerging and novel conservation challenges. Yet, key data and knowledge gaps remain and should be addressed to advance conservation and decision-making capabilities. For mountain goats and similarly climate-sensitive alpine herbivores, effective conservation will ultimately benefit from collaborations among diverse networks guided by well-planned, strategic visions focused on common ground – namely the resiliency and persistence of culturally and ecologically significant mountain species and the alpine environment they inhabit.

Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana,↗

USGS2001

Analytical data for waters of the Harvard Open Pit, Jamestown Mine, Tuolumne County, California, March 1998-September 1999

The Jamestown mine is located in the Jamestown mining district in western Tuolumne County, California (see Fig. 1). This district is one of many located on or near the Melones fault zone, a major regional suture in the Sierra Nevada foothills. The districts along the Melones fault comprise the Mother Lode gold belt (Clark, 1970). The Harvard pit is the largest of several open pits mined at the Jamestown site by Sonora Mining Corporation between 1986 and 1994 (Fig. 2; Algood, 1990). It is at the site of an historical mine named the Harvard that produced about 100,000 troy ounces of gold, mainly between 1906 and 1916 (Julihn and Horton, 1940). Sonora Mining mined and processed about 17,000,000 short tons of ore, with an overall stripping ratio of about 4.5:1, yielding about 660,000 troy ounces of gold (Nelson and Leicht, 1994). Most of this material came from the Harvard pit, which attained dimensions of about 2700 ft (830 m) in length, 1500 ft (460 m) in width, and 600 ft (185 m) in depth. The bottom of the pit is at an elevation of 870 ft (265 m). Since mining operations ceased in mid-1994, the open pit has been filling with water. As of November, 2000, lake level had reached an elevation of about 1170 ft (357 m). Water quality monitoring data gathered after mine closure showed rising levels of arsenic, sulfate, and other components in the lake, with particularly notable increases accompanying a period of rapid filling in 1995 (County of Tuolumne, 1998). The largest potential source for arsenic in the vicinity of the Harvard pit is arsenian pyrite, the most abundant sulfide mineral related to gold mineralization. A previous study of weathering of arsenian pyrite in similarly mineralized rocks at the Clio mine, in the nearby Jacksonville mining district, showed that arsenic released by weathering of arsenian pyrite is effectively attenuated by adsorption on goethite or coprecipitation with jarosite, depending upon the buffering capacity of the pyrite-bearing rock (Savage and others, 2000). Although jarosite would be expected to dissolve in water having the composition of the developing pit lake, iron oxyhydroxide species (ferrihydrite and goethite) would be stable, and strong partitioning of arsenic onto suspended particles or bottom sediments containing these iron phases would be expected. Arsenic release to the lake would not be expected until stratification develops, producing a reducing, non-circulating hypolimnion in which the iron phases would be destroyed by dissolution. The fact that arsenic concentrations increased rapidly before the pit lake was deep enough to stratify shows that arsenic may not be attenuated in the ways that the earlier Clio mine area study indicated, and suggested that our understanding of release and transport of arsenic in this environment is incomplete. Therefore, in 1997 we decided to study the chemical evolution of the Harvard pit lake as part of a project on environmental impacts of gold mining in the Sierra Nevada, and in early 1998 we developed a cooperative study with several of the investigators in the Stanford University Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences who had done the Clio study. The U.S. Geological Survey portion of the project has been funded by the Mineral Resources Program. It is anticipated that a better understanding of the release and transport of arsenic into the Harvard pit lake and its accumulation there will contribute to more accurate predictions of arsenic release from weathering of sulfide-bearing rocks exposed by mining or other activities or events, and to better forecasts of pit lake evolution in this and similar environments, leading to more effective monitoring and mitigation strategies. An accurate predictive model is needed for the Harvard pit lake to forecast trends in metal concentrations, particularly arsenic, and also concentrations of major cations and anions. As the lake approaches pre-mining groundwater levels the lake water could move down the hydrologic gradient to the southeast into domestic wells, and could also affect the surface water of Woods Creek (see Figures 1-3). This report presents data for water samples collected from March, 1998 through September, 1999. Selected preliminary data for the pit lake for the 1998 calendar year have been reported (Savage and others, 2000).

California↗

USGS2012

Flood-inundation maps for the St. Marys River at Fort Wayne, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 9-mile reach of the St. Marys River that extends from South Anthony Boulevard to Main Street at Fort Wayne, Indiana, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Fort Wayne. The inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site, depict estimates of the areal extent of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage 04182000 St. Marys River near Fort Wayne, Ind. Current conditions at the USGS streamgages in Indiana may be obtained from the National Water Information System: Web Interface. In addition, the information has been provided to the National Weather Service (NWS) for incorporation into their Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) flood warning system. The NWS forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often collocated at USGS streamgages. That forecasted peak-stage information, also available on the Internet, may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. In this study, water-surface profiles were simulated for the stream reach by means of a hydraulic one-dimensional step-backwater model. The model was calibrated using the most current stage-discharge relation at the USGS streamgage 04182000 St. Marys River near Fort Wayne, Ind. The hydraulic model was then used to simulate 11 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-ft intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from bankfull to approximately the highest recorded water level at the streamgage. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model (derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data) in order to delineate the area flooded at each water level. A flood inundation map was generated for each water-surface profile stage (11 maps in all) so that for any given flood stage users will be able to view the estimated area of inundation. The availability of these maps along with current stage from USGS streamgages and forecasted stream stages from the NWS provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures as well as for post flood recovery efforts.

Indiana↗

USGS2026

Changing drivers of regional large magnitude avalanche frequency throughout Colorado, USA

Large magnitude snow avalanches (destructive size ≥ D3) impact settlements, transportation corridors, and public safety worldwide. In Colorado, United States, avalanches have killed more people than any other natural hazard since 1950. In March 2019, a large magnitude avalanche cycle occurred throughout the entire mountainous portion of Colorado resulting in more than 1000 reported avalanches during a two-week period. Nearly 200 of these avalanches were size D4 or larger with at least three D5 avalanches. However, placing this 2019 large magnitude avalanche cycle in historic context requires data prior to the instrumental record. Here, we paired tree disturbance data from dendrochronology (1698 to 2020) with meteorological data from the modeled and instrumental record (1901 to 2020) to understand the frequency and climate drivers of large magnitude snow avalanche cycles. The extensive number of downed trees from the 2019 avalanche cycle allowed us to collect 1,188 cross-sections and cores from 1023 individual trees within 24 avalanche paths across the state. From these samples we identified 4135 avalanche-related growth disturbances. We employed a strategic nested sampling design to spatially aggregate avalanche frequency from individual avalanche paths, to counties, to three major sub-regions (i.e., north, central, and south), and across the entire region (i.e., state of Colorado). Over a period spanning more than three centuries (1698 to 2020), we identified 76 avalanche years within 24 individual avalanche paths. Large magnitude avalanche event frequency varied across paths and sub-regions with several notable region-wide avalanche cycles. Both tree-ring and historical written records highlighted 1899 as a year with widespread and large magnitude avalanche activity similar to the March 2019 avalanche cycle. Since the early-20th century (1900 to 2020) regional avalanche probability declined significantly in parallel with decreasing snowpack throughout Colorado. Similarly, dominant avalanche regimes shifted from large magnitude regional cycles driven by above average snowfall years over most of the record, to regional avalanche cycles occurring more commonly in average to low snow years since 1988. In recent decades, a lack of December precipitation and above average March precipitation characterized years with regional large magnitude avalanche activity. Even with declining snow water equivalent, truly extreme regional large magnitude avalanche cycles remain possible – as demonstrated by the 2019 cycle. This underscores that rare but high-impact events are not eliminated by long-term trends. Understanding the changing snow and weather drivers and subsequent behavior of large magnitude avalanche cycles across multiple spatial scales may improve avalanche forecasting and the products and mitigations strategies developed by structural engineers to mitigate avalanche danger. This can decrease the avalanche risk to the public and improve infrastructure design in avalanche terrain.

Colorado↗

USGS2022

Interannual variation in climate contributes to contingency in post-fire restoration outcomes in seeded sagebrush steppe

Interannual variation, especially weather, is an often-cited reason for restoration “failures”; yet its importance is difficult to experimentally isolate across broad spatiotemporal extents, due to correlations between weather and site characteristics. We examined post-fire treatments within sagebrush-steppe ecosystems to ask: (1) Is weather following seeding efforts a primary reason why restoration outcomes depart from predictions? and (2) Does the management-relevance of weather differ across space and with time since treatment? Our analysis quantified range-wide patterns of sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) recovery, by integrating long-term records of restoration and annual vegetation cover estimates from satellite imagery following thousands of post-fire seeding treatments from 1984 to 2005. Across the Great Basin, sagebrush growth increased in wetter, cooler springs; however, the importance of spring weather varied with sites' long-term climates, suggesting differing ecophysiological limitations across sagebrush's range. Incorporation of spring weather, including from the “planting year,” improved predictions of sagebrush recovery, but these advances were small compared to contributions of time-invariant site characteristics. Given extreme weather conditions threatening this ecosystem, explicit consideration of weather could improve the allocation of management resources, such as by identifying areas requiring repeated treatments; but improved forecasts of shifting mean conditions with climate change may more significantly aid the prediction of sagebrush recovery.

California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,↗

USGS2015

Flood-inundation maps for the St. Marys River at Decatur, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for an 8.9-mile reach of the St. Marys River at Decatur, Indiana, were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. The inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site ( http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ ), depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) of the St. Marys River at Decatur (USGS station number 04181500). The maps are useful for estimating near-real-time areas of inundation by referencing concurrent USGS streamgage information at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ . In addition, the streamgage information was provided to the National Weather Service (NWS) for incorporation into their Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service flood warning system ( http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/ ). NWS-forecasted peak-stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed during this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. During this study, flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional, step-backwater model. The model was calibrated by using the stage-discharge relation for the streamgage at St. Marys River at Decatur. The hydraulic model was used to compute 18 water-surface profiles for flood stages varied at 1-foot (ft) intervals and ranging from approximately bankfull (13 ft above gage datum) to greater than the highest recorded water level at the streamgage. To delineate the area of flood inundation for each modeled water level, maps were constructed in a geographic information system by combining the simulated water-surface profiles with a digital-elevation model derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data. Estimated flood-inundation boundaries along each simulated profile were developed using HEC–GeoRAS software. The availability of these maps and associated Web mapping tools, along with the current river stage from USGS streamgages and forecasted flood stages from the NWS, provides emergency managers and residents with information that may be critical for flood-emergency planning and flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Indiana↗

USGS2018

Hydraulic modeling and flood-inundation mapping for the Huron River and Ore Lake Tributary, Livingston County, Michigan

Digital flood-inundation maps for an 8-mile (mi) reach of the Huron River near Hamburg, Michigan (station number 04172000), from downstream of Rickett Road to Strawberry Lake, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with Green Oak and Hamburg Townships, Michigan, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The flood-inundation maps also include a 1.16-mi reach of the Ore Lake Tributary until it joins the Huron River, approximately 2.22 mi downstream of Rickett Road. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science website at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage on the Huron River near Hamburg, Michigan (station number 04172000). Near real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained on the Internet from the USGS National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/ . The NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service also provides forecasted flood hydrographs at this website. Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the current stage-discharge relation at the Huron River near Hamburg, Mich., streamgage and was calibrated to water levels determined with stage sensors (pressure transducers) temporarily deployed along the stream reach. The hydraulic model was used to compute a set of water-surface profiles for flood stages ranging from 7.0 to 10.5 feet (ft). This range represents stages just above 6.0 (bankfull) to 2.04 ft above the maximum recorded stage at the USGS streamgage on the Huron River near Hamburg, Mich. (station number 04172000). The computed water-surface profiles were then combined with a Geographic Information System digital elevation model (derived from light detection and ranging [lidar] data having a 0.49-ft vertical accuracy and 3.8-ft horizontal resolution) to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with Internet information regarding current stage and forecasted high-flow stages from the NWS, will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information critical for flood-response activities such as evacuations, road closures, and postflood recovery efforts.

Michigan↗