Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Stages”

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

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

At least 487 records · Page 27Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Flood-inundation maps for Peachtree Creek from the Norfolk Southern Railway bridge to the Moores Mill Road NW bridge, Atlanta, Georgia

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 5.5-mile reach of the Peachtree Creek from the Norfolk Southern Railway bridge to the Moores Mill Road NW bridge, were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Atlanta, Georgia. The 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 Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Georgia (02336300) and the USGS streamgage at Chattahoochee River at Georgia 280, near Atlanta, Georgia (02336490). Current water level (stage) at these USGS streamgages may be obtained at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ and can be used in conjunction with these maps to estimate near real-time areas of inundation. The National Weather Service (NWS) is incorporating results from this study into the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) flood warning system (http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/). The NWS forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that commonly are collocated at USGS streamgages. The forecasted peak-stage information for the USGS streamgage at Peachtree Creek, which is available through the AHPS Web site, may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in 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 HEC–RAS software for a 6.5-mile reach of Peachtree Creek and was used to compute flood profiles for a 5.5-mile reach of the creek. The model was calibrated using the most current stage-discharge relations at the Peachtree Creek at Atlanta, Georgia, streamgage (02336300), and the Chattahoochee River at Georgia 280, near Atlanta, Georgia, streamgage (02336490) as well as high water marks collected during the 2010 annual peak flow event. The hydraulic model was then used to determine 50 water-surface profiles. The profiles are for 10 flood stages at the Peachtree Creek streamgage at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from just above bankfull stage (15.0 feet) to approximately the highest recorded water level at the streamgage (24.0 feet). At each stage on Peachtree Creek, five stages at the Chattahoochee River streamgage, from 26.4 feet to 38.4 feet in 3-foot intervals, were used to determine backwater effects. 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 0.3-foot vertical and 16.4-foot horizontal resolution—to delineate the area flooded for each 1-foot increment of stream stage. The availability of these maps, when combined with real-time information regarding current stage from USGS streamgages and forecasted stream stages from the NWS, provide emergency management personnel and residents with critical information during flood response activities, such as evacuations and road closures as well as for postflood-recovery efforts.

Georgia↗
USGS2017

Flood-inundation maps for the St. Joseph River at Elkhart, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 6.6-mile reach of the St. Joseph River at Elkhart, 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 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 04101000, St. Joseph River at Elkhart, Ind. Real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained on the Internet from the USGS National Water Information System at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site (NWS site EKMI3). Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional, step-backwater hydraulic modeling software developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated using the current stage-discharge rating at the USGS streamgage 04101000, St. Joseph River at Elkhart, Ind., and the documented high-water marks from the flood of March 1982. The hydraulic model was then used to compute six water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the streamgage datum ranging from 23.0 ft (the NWS “action stage”) to 28.0 ft, which is the highest stage interval of the current USGS stage-discharge rating curve and 1 ft higher than the NWS “major flood stage.” 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 0.49-ft root mean squared error and 4.9-ft horizontal resolution, resampled to a 10-ft grid) to delineate the area flooded at each stage. 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 post-flood recovery efforts.

Indiana↗
USGS2017

Flood-inundation maps for the White River at Noblesville, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 7.5-mile reach of the White River at Noblesville, Indiana, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation. 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 White River at Noblesville, Ind., streamgage (USGS station number 03349000). Real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at the same site as the USGS streamgage (NWS site NBLI3). Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional, step-backwater hydraulic modeling software developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated using the current (2016) stage-discharge rating at the USGS streamgage 03349000, White River at Noblesville, Ind., and documented high-water marks from the floods of September 4, 2003, and May 6, 2017. The hydraulic model was then used to compute 15 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the streamgage datum ranging from 10.0 ft (the NWS “action stage”) to 24.0 ft, which is the highest stage interval of the current (2016) USGS stage-discharge rating curve and 2 ft higher than the NWS “major flood stage.” The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model (derived from light detection and ranging data having a 0.98-ft vertical accuracy and 4.9-ft horizontal resolution) to delineate the area flooded at each stage. 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.

Indiana↗
USGS2017

Flood-inundation maps for North Fork Salt Creek at Nashville, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 3.2-mile reach of North Fork Salt Creek at Nashville, Indiana, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation. 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 that correspond to selected water levels (stages) at the North Fork Salt Creek at Nashville, Ind., streamgage (USGS station number 03371650). Real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis or the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/ , which also shows observed USGS stages at the same site as the USGS streamgage (NWS site NFSI3). Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional, step-backwater hydraulic modeling software developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic model was calibrated using the current (2015) stage-discharge rating at the USGS streamgage 03371650, North Fork Salt Creek at Nashville, Ind. The hydraulic model was then used to compute 12 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals, except for the highest profile of 22.9 ft, referenced to the streamgage datum ranging from 12.0 ft (the NWS “action stage”) to 22.9 ft, which is the highest stage of the current (2015) USGS stage-discharge rating curve and 1.9 ft higher than the NWS “major flood stage.” The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model (derived from light detection and ranging data having a 0.98-ft vertical accuracy and 4.9-ft horizontal resolution) to delineate the area flooded at each stage. The availability of these maps, along with information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage, 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.

Indiana↗
USGS1996

Paragenetic and minor- and trace-element studies of Mississippi Valley-type ore deposits of the Silesian-Cracow district, Poland

Paragenetic and minor- and trace-element studies were conducted on samples of epigenetic ore and gangue minerals collected from mines and drill core in the Silesian-Cracow (S-C) district of southern Poland. Four discrete mineral suites representing four mineralizing stages can be identified throughout the district. The earliest epigenetic minerals deposited during stage 1 consist of a late dolomite cement together with minor pyrite and marcasite. Stage 2 was the first ore-forming stage and included repetitive deposition of sphalerite and galena in a variety of morphologies. Stage 3 abruptly followed the first ore stage and deposited marcasite and pyrite with variable amounts of late sphalerite and galena. In the samples studied, minerals deposited during stage 3 are predominately marcasite-pyrite with minor sphalerite and galena in the Pomorzany and Olkusz mines, whereas, at the Trzebionka mine, stage 3 mineralization deposited mostly galena and sphalerite with little marcasite or pyrite. Stage 4 minerals include contains barite, followed by calcite, with very minor pyrite and a rare, late granular sphalerite. Compared to other major Mississippi Valley-type (MVT) districts of the world, the Silesian-Cracow district contains sphalerite with the second largest range in Ag concentrations and the largest range in Fe and Cd concentrations of any district. Unlike in other districts, very wide ranges in minor- and trace-element concentrations are also observed in paragenetically equivalent samples collected throughout the district. This wide range indicates that the minor- and trace-element content of the ore-forming environment was highly variable, both spatially and temporally, and suggests that the hydrologic system that the ore fluids traversed from their basinal source was very complex. Throughout the district, a significant increase in Tl, Ge, and As concentrations is accompanied by a lightening of sulfur isotopes between stage 2 and stage 3 minerals. This change appears to record a major district-scale hydrologic event that probably reflects the introduction of fluids with significantly different geochemistry than that of earlier ore-forming fluids.

Prace - Panstwowego Instytutu Geologicznego↗
USGS2017

Building a state-space life cycle model for naturally produced Snake River fall Chinook salmon

In 1992, Snake River basin fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were listed for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (NMFS 1992) and the population remained below 1000 individuals until 2000. Since then, returns from natural production has rebounded to over 20,000 spawners owing to a host of factors including reduced harvest (Peters et al. 2001), stable minimum spawning flows (Groves and Chandler 1999), summer flow augmentation (Connor et al. 2003), predator control (Beamesderfer et al. 1996), hatchery supplementation (Rosenberger et al. 2017), improved juvenile passage structures (Adams et al. 2014), summer spill operations (Perry et al. 2006; Adams et al. 2008), and periods of favorable ocean conditions and food availability (Logerwell et al. 2003; Peterson et al. 2014). Given this change in abundance coincident with numerous management actions and fluctuation in environmental drivers, quantifying which factors contributed to the observed rebound in natural production can provide critical insights into future management actions for this at-risk population. Multistage life cycle models provide a powerful analytical framework for understating how each life stage of a population contributes to population growth rate (Moussalli and Hilborn 1986; Greene and Beechie 2004). Multistage models may also be used as an analytical framework to explicitly estimate demographic parameters of a population model. This approach has an advantage over single-stage stock-recruitment models by allowing population growth rates to be partitioned among life stages rather than aggregated over an entire life cycle. Such partitioning allows for estimating 1) stage-specific density dependence, and 2) stage-specific effects of environmental factors or management actions. For example, Zabel et al. (2006) estimated parameters of a multistage model used in the context of a population viability analysis for spring/summer Chinook salmon in the Snake River, but such an approach has yet to be applied to fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin. Typically, data informing estimates of abundance at particular “check points” in the life cycle determines the complexity of the multistage model that can be fit to the data. For fall Chinook salmon, we are developing a two-stage model that encompasses: 1) upstream passage of spawners at Lower Granite Dam (LGR) to the subsequent downstream passage of their progeny at the dam, and 2) downstream passage of juveniles at LGR to their subsequent return from the ocean and passage at the Dam 2‒6 years later. This approach partitions the life cycle of fall Chinook salmon both spatially and temporally, which allows us to fit and compare alternative models with covariates specific to each stage. Our previous report to the ISAB (Zabel et al. 2013) detailed methods for estimating abundance of naturally produced adults and juveniles passing Lower Granite Dam, which provides the requisite data for fitting a two-stage model. The intent of this report is to describe the structure of the two-stage life cycle model, present preliminary results from fitting the model to data, and outline future directions and developments. As is clear from the diversity of models presented in this report, “life cycle models” range from very simple theoretically based population models (e.g., the Beverton-Holt stock- recruitment model) to very complex spatially explicit simulation models linked to hydrosystem hydrodynamic models (e.g., the COMPASS model for a single transition in a life cycle model, Zabel et al. 2008). We chose to develop a model of intermediate complexity that casts the two- stage life cycle model in a state-space framework (Newman et al. 2014). We chose to use a state-space framework implemented in a Bayesian framework because: • It provides both a statistical estimation framework for retrospective statistical analysis and a stochastic simulation framework for prospective analysis to evaluate alternative management actions. • Abundance estimates are uncertain. A state-space framework accounts for observation uncertainty in the abundance estimates and other data (e.g., age structure) while simultaneously estimating process uncertainty. • It allows for missing data. By drawing missing data from an appropriate probability model, uncertainty owing to missing data can be propagated without having to omit data or assume fixed values for missing data. Thus, a two-stage state-space life cycle model for fall Chinook salmon strikes an appropriate balance between model complexity, tractability, and applicability given the goals of performing both retrospective and prospective analysis to guide future management of this population.

Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming↗
USGS2020

Is your ad hoc model selection strategy affecting your multimodel inference?

(Yackulic) 1. Ecologists routinely fit complex models with multiple parameters of interest, where hundreds or more competing models are plausible. To limit the number of fitted models, ecologists often define a model selection strategy composed of a series of stages in which certain features of a model are compared while other features are held constant. Defining these multi-stage strategies requires making a series of decisions, which may potentially impact inferences, but have not been critically evaluated. 2. We begin by identifying key features of strategies, introducing descriptive terms when they did not already exist in the literature. Strategies differ in how they define and order model building stages. Sequential-by-sub-model strategies focus on one sub-model (parameter) at a time with modeling of subsequent sub-models dependent on the selected model structures from the previous stages. Secondary candidate set strategies model sub-models independently and combine the top set of models from each sub-model for selection in a final stage. Build-up approaches define stages across sub-models and increase in complexity at each stage. Strategies also differ in how the top set of models is selected in each stage and whether they use null or more complex model structures for non-target sub-models. 3. We tested the performance of different model selection strategies using four datasets and three model types. For each dataset, we determined the “true” distribution of AIC weights by fitting all plausible models. Then, we calculated the number of models that would have been fitted and the portion of “true” AIC weight we recovered under different model selection strategies. 4. Sequential-by-sub-model strategies often performed poorly. Build-up or secondary candidate sets were more reliable, provided all models within 5 AIC of the top model were carried forward to subsequent stages. The structure of non-target sub-models was less important. 5. Multi-stage approaches cannot compensate for a lack of critical thought in selecting covariates and building models to represent competing a priori hypotheses. However, even when competing hypotheses for different sub-models are limited, thousands or more models may be possible so strategies to explore candidate model space reliably and efficiently will be necessary.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2000

Ore-fluid evolution at the Getchell Carlin-type gold deposit, Nevada, USA

Minerals and fluid-inclusion populations were examined using petrography, microthermometry, quadrupole mass-spectrometer gas analyses and stable-isotope studies to characterize fluids responsible for gold mineralization at the Getchell Carlin-type gold deposit. The gold-ore assemblage at Getchell is superimposed on quartz-pyrite vein mineralization associated with a Late-Cretaceous granodiorite stock that intruded Lower-Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. The ore assemblage, of mid-Tertiary age, consists of disseminated arsenian pyrite that contains submicrometer gold, jasperoid quartz, and later fluorite and orpiment that fill fractures and vugs. Late ore-stage realgar and calcite enclose ore-stage minerals. Pre-ore quartz trapped fluids with a wide range of salinities (1 to 21 wt.% NaCl equivalent), gas compositions (H 2 O, CO 2 , and CH 4 ), and temperatures (120 to > 360°C). Oxygen- and hydrogen-isotope ratios indicate that pre-ore fluids likely had a magmatic source, and were associated with intrusion of the granodiorite stock and related dikes. Ore-stage jasperoid contains moderate salinity, aqueous fluid inclusions trapped at 180 to 220°C. Ore fluids contain minor CO 2 and trace H 2 S that allowed the fluid to react with limestone host rocks and transport gold, respectively. Aqueous inclusions in fluorite indicate that fluid temperatures declined to ∼ 175°C by the end of ore-stage mineralization. As the hydrothermal system collapsed, fluid temperatures declined to 155 to 115°C and realgar and calcite precipitated. Inclusion fluids in ore-stage minerals have high δD H2O and δ 18 O H2O values that indicate that the fluid had a deep source, and had a metamorphic or magmatic origin, or both. Late ore-stage fluids extend to lower δ H2O values, and have a wider range of δ 18 O H2O values suggesting dilution by variably exchanged meteoric waters. Results show that deeply sourced ore fluids rose along the Getchell fault system, where they dissolved carbonate wall rocks and deposited gold-enriched pyrite and jasperoid quartz. Gold and pyrite precipitated together as H 2 S in the ore fluids reacted with iron in the host rocks. As ore fluids mixed with local aquifer fluids, ore fluids became cooler and more dilute. Cooling caused precipitation of ore-stage fluorite and orpiment, and late ore-stage realgar. Phase separation and/or neutralization of the ore fluid during the waning stages of the hydrothermal ore system led to deposition of late ore-stage calcite.

Nevada↗
USGS1978

Origin of a South Texas roll-type deposit; II, Sulfide petrology and sulfur isotope studies

Petrologic and sulfur isotopic studies have been carried out on drill core samples from a roll-type uranium deposit in the mid-Tertiary Catahoula Tuff, Webb County, south Texas. Epigenetic iron disulfide minerals formed in two distinct stages. The first stage involved sulfidization of the host rock by sulfide (H 2 S, HS-)-bearing solutions that emanated from a fault about 1.5 km downdip from and subparallel to the orebody. Pyrite was the dominant iron disulfide mineral formed from this fault sulfide. The isotopic composition (delta 34 S) of first-stage iron disulfide is quite heavy (>0 per mil), in part because the fault-derived H 2 S was isotopically heavy. The development of the second-stage sulfides was related to processes that formed the uranium roll. Iron disulfide minerals produced during this second stage commonly occur as rims around the first-stage sulfides. The rims are exclusively marcasite in and adjacent to ore, but the pyrite content in these rims increases with increasing distance from ore. The sulfur of the second-stage sulfides in the vicinity of the roll front is isotopically light (--25 to --40 per mil). The virtual absence of organic carbon in the host sand precludes a bacterial origin for the ore-stage iron disulfide minerals and, therefore, eliminates bacterial metabolism as the mechanism for isotopic fractionation. Instead, the sulfur source for ore-stage sulfides was preore (first stage) sulfides, remobilized via partial oxidation to soluble metastable sulfur oxyanions.

Texas↗
USGS1999

At-sea distribution of Spectacled Eiders: A 120-year-old mystery resolved

The at-sea distribution of the threatened Spectacled Eider ( Somateria fischeri ) has remained largely undocumented. We identified migration corridors, staging and molting areas, and wintering areas of adult Spectacled Eiders using implanted satellite-transmitters in birds from each of the three extant breeding grounds (North Slope and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in Alaska and arctic Russia). Based on transmitter locations, we conducted aerial surveys to provide visual confirmation of eider flocks and to estimate numbers of birds. We identified two principal molting and staging areas off coastal Alaska (Ledyard Bay and eastern Norton Sound) and two off coastal Russia (Mechigmenskiy Bay on the eastern Chukotka Peninsula, and the area between the Indigirka and Kolyma deltas in the Republic of Sakha). We estimated that >10,000 birds molt and stage in monospecific flocks at Mechigmenskiy and Ledyard bays, and several thousand molt and stage in eastern Norton Sound. We further identified eastern Norton Sound as the principal molting and staging area for females nesting on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and Ledyard Bay and Mechigmenskiy Bay as the principal molting and staging areas for females nesting on the North Slope. Males marked at all three breeding grounds molt and stage in Mechigmenskiy Bay, Ledyard Bay, and the Indigirka-Kolyma delta region. Males from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta molt and stage mainly at Mechigmenskiy Bay. Equal numbers of males from the North Slope molt and stage at all three areas, and most males from arctic Russia molt and stage at the Indigirka-Kolyma delta region. Postbreeding migration corridors were offshore in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. In winter, eiders were in the Bering Sea south of St. Lawrence Island. Our estimates from surveys in late winter and early spring suggest that at least 333,000 birds winter in single-species flocks in the pack ice in the Bering Sea.

Alaska↗
USGS2012

Flood-inundation maps for the Saddle River from Rochelle Park to Lodi, New Jersey, 2012

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 2.75-mile reach of the Saddle River from 0.2 mile upstream from the Interstate 80 bridge in Rochelle Park to 1.5 miles downstream from the U.S. Route 46 bridge in Lodi, New Jersey, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The 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 Saddle River at Lodi, New Jersey (station 01391500). Current conditions for estimating near real-time areas of inundation using USGS streamgage information may be obtained on the Internet at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=01391500 . The National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often collocated with USGS streamgages. NWS-forecasted peak-stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. In this study, flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The model was calibrated using the most current stage-discharge relations at the Saddle River at Lodi, New Jersey streamgage and documented high-water marks from recent floods. The hydraulic model was then used to determine 11 water-surface profiles for flood stages at the Saddle River streamgage at 1-ft intervals referenced to the streamgage datum, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), and ranging from bankfull, 0.5 ft below NWS Action Stage, to the extent of the stage-discharge rating, which is approximately 1 ft higher than the highest recorded water level at the streamgage. Action Stage is the stage which when reached by a rising stream the NWS or a partner needs to take some type of mitigation action in preparation for possible significant hydrologic activity. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system 3-meter (9.84-ft) digital elevation model (derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data) in order to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with Internet information regarding 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.

New Jersey↗
USGS2013

Flood-inundation maps for the Saddle River from Upper Saddle River Borough to Saddle River Borough, New Jersey, 2013

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 4.1-mile reach of the Saddle River from 0.6 miles downstream from the New Jersey-New York State boundary in Upper Saddle River Borough to 0.2 miles downstream from the East Allendale Road bridge in Saddle River Borough, New Jersey, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The 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 select water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage 01390450, Saddle River at Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Current conditions for estimating near real-time areas of inundation using USGS streamgage information may be obtained on the Internet at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=01390450. The National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often collocated with USGS streamgages. NWS-forecasted peak-stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. In 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 most current stage-discharge relations (in effect March 2013) at USGS streamgage 01390450, Saddle River at Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, and documented high-water marks from recent floods. The hydraulic model was then used to determine eight water-surface profiles for flood stages at 0.5-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the streamgage datum, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), and ranging from bankfull, 0.5 ft below NWS Action Stage, to the upper extent of the stage-discharge rating which is approximately 1 ft higher than the highest recorded water level at the streamgage. Action Stage is the stage which when reached by a rising stream the NWS or a partner needs to take some type of mitigation action in preparation for possible significant hydrologic activity. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system 3-meter (9.84 ft) digital elevation model (derived from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data) in order to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps along with real-time streamflow data and information regarding 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.

New Jersey↗
USGS2014

Flood inundation maps for the Wabash and Eel Rivers at Logansport, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for an 8.3-mile reach of the Wabash River and a 7.6-mile reach of the Eel River at Logansport, Indiana (Ind.), were created 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 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 USGS streamgage Wabash River at Logansport, Ind. (sta. no. 03329000) and USGS streamgage Eel River near Logansport, Ind. (sta. no. 03328500). Current conditions for estimating near-real-time areas of inundation using USGS streamgage information may be obtained on the Internet at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ . In addition, information has been provided to the National Weather Service (NWS) for incorporation into their Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) flood warning system http:/water.weather.gov/ahps/ ). The NWS forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often colocated with USGS streamgages. NWS-forecasted peak-stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. For this study, flood profiles were computed for the stream reaches 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 most current stage-discharge relations at USGS streamgages 03329000, Wabash River at Logansport, Ind., and 03328500, Eel River near Logansport, Ind. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to determine five water-surface profiles for flood stage at 1-foot intervals referenced to the Wabash River streamgage datum, and four water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the Eel River streamgage datum. The stages range from bankfull to approximately the highest stages that have occurred since 1967 when three flood control dams were built upstream of Logansport, Ind. 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 having a 0.37-foot vertical accuracy and 3.9-foot horizontal resolution) in order to delineate the area flooded at each stage. The availability of these maps, along with information available on the Internet regarding current stages from the USGS streamgages at Logansport, Ind., and forecasted stream stages from the NWS, 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↗
USGS2005

Movement of the saltwater interface in the surficial aquifer system in response to hydrologic stresses and water-management practices, Broward County, Florida

A study was conducted to evaluate the relation between water-level fluctuations and saltwater intrusion in Broward County, Florida. The objective was achieved through data collection at selected wells in Broward County and through the development of a variable-density ground-water flow model. The numerical model is representative of many locations in Broward County that contain a well field, control structure, canal, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Atlantic Ocean. The model was used to simulate short-term movement (from tidal fluctuations to monthly changes) and long-term movement (greater than 10 years) of the saltwater interface resulting from changes in rainfall, well-field withdrawals, sea-level rise, and upstream canal stage. The SEAWAT code, which is a combined version of the computer codes, MODFLOW and MT3D, was used to simulate the complex variable-density flow patterns. Model results indicated that the canal, control structure, and sea level have major effects on ground-water flow. For periods greater than 10 years, the upstream canal stage controls the movement and location of the saltwater interface. If upstream canal stage is decreased by 1 foot (0.3048 meter), the saltwater interface takes 50 years to move inland and stabilize. If the upstream canal stage is then increased by 1 foot (0.3048 meter), the saltwater interface takes 90 years to move seaward and stabilize. If sea level rises about 48 centimeters over the next 100 year as predicted, then inland movement of the saltwater interface may cause well-field contamination. For periods less than 10 years, simulation results indicated that a 3-year drought with increased well-field withdrawals probably will not have long-term effects on the position of the saltwater interface in the Biscayne aquifer. The saltwater interface returns to its original position in less than 10 years. Model results, however, indicated that the interface location in the lower part of the surficial aquifer system takes longer than 10 years to recover from a drought. Additionally, rainfall seems to have the greatest effect on saltwater interface movement in areas some distance from canals, but the upstream canal stage has the greatest effect on the movement of the saltwater interface near canals. Field data indicated that saltwater interface movement includes short-term fluctuations caused by tidal fluctuations and long-term seasonal fluctuations. Statistical analyses of daily-averaged data indicated that the saltwater interface moves in response to pumpage, rainfall, and upstream canal stage. In areas near the canal, the saltwater interface is most affected by canal stage because water-management structures control the stage in the upstream part of the canal and allow movement of the saltwater interface. In areas away from the canal, the saltwater interface is most affected by pumpage and rainfall, depending on the location of well fields. Data analyses also revealed that rainfall changes the vertical flow direction in the Biscayne aquifer. Results from the study indicated that upstream canal stage substantially affects the long-term position of the saltwater interface in the surficial aquifer system. The saltwater interface moves faster inland than seaward because of changes in upstream canal stage. For short-term problems, such as drought, the threat of saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne aquifer does not appear to be severe if the well-field withdrawal is increased; however, this conclusion is based on the assumption that well-field withdrawals will decrease once the drought is over. Sea-level rise may be a potential threat to the water supply in Broward County as the saltwater interface moves inland toward well fields.

Florida↗
USGS2015

Flood-inundation maps for the White River at Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 6.4-mile reach of the White River in Indianapolis, Indiana, from 0.3 miles upstream of Michigan Street to the Harding Street Generating Station dam (at the confluence with Lick Creek), 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 White River at Indianapolis, Ind. (station number 03353000). 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/ , which also forecasts flood hydrographs at this site. Flood profiles were computed for the stream reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The model was calibrated by using the current stage-discharge relations at three USGS streamgages: the White River at Indianapolis (station number 03353000), the White River at Michigan Street at Indianapolis (station number 03352953), and the White River at Stout Generating Station at Indianapolis (station number 03353611). The hydraulic model was then used to compute 11 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot (ft) intervals referenced to the White River at Indianapolis streamgage datum and ranging from 10 ft, or the NWS “action stage,” to 20 ft, which is the highest stage in the stage-discharge relation for the streamgage and the NWS “moderate flood stage.” 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 vertical 0.183-ft root mean squared error and 5.0-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 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.

Indiana↗
USGS2016

Flood-inundation maps for the Green River in Colrain, Leyden, and Greenfield, Massachusetts, from U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 01170100 Green River near Colrain to the confluence with the Deerfield River

The U.S. Geological Survey developed flood elevations in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a 14.3-mile reach of the Green River in Colrain, Leyden, and Greenfield, Massachusetts, to assist landowners and emergency management workers to prepare for and recover from floods. The river reach extends from the U.S. Geological Survey Green River near Colrain, MA (01170100) streamgage downstream to the confluence with the Deerfield River. A series of seven digital flood inundation maps were developed for the upper 4.4 miles of the river reach downstream from the stream. Flood discharges corresponding to the 50-, 10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities were computed for the reach from updated flood-frequency analyses. These peak flows and the flood flows associated with the stages of 10.2, 12.4, and 14.4 feet (ft) at the Green River streamgage were routed through a one-dimensional step-backwater hydraulic model to obtain the corresponding peak water-surface elevations and to place the Tropical Storm Irene flood of August 28, 2011 (stage 13.97 ft), into historical context. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the current (2015) stage-discharge relation at the U.S. Geological Survey Green River near Colrain, MA (01170100) streamgage and from documented high-water marks from the Tropical Storm Irene flood, which had a flow higher than a 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability flood discharge. The hydraulic model was used to compute water-surface profiles for flood stages referenced to the streamgage and ranging from the 50-percent annual exceedance probability (bankfull flow) at 7.6 ft (439.8 ft above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]) to 14.4 ft (446.7 ft NAVD 88), which exceeds the maximum recorded water level of 13.97 ft (Tropical Storm Irene) at the streamgage. The mapped stages of 7.6 to 14.4 ft were selected to match the stages for bankfull; the 50-, 10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities; incremental stages of 10.2 and 12.4 ft; and the maximum stage of the stage-discharge rating curve. The simulated water-surface profiles were combined with a geographic information system digital elevation model derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data having a 0.5-ft vertical accuracy to create a set of flood-inundation maps. The availability of the flood-inundation maps, combined with information regarding near real-time stage from U.S. Geological Survey Green River near Colrain, MA (01170100) streamgage, can provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities, such as evacuations and road closures, and postflood recovery efforts. The flood-inundation maps are nonregulatory but provide Federal, State, and local agencies and the public with estimates of the potential extent of flooding during selected peak-flow events.

Massachusetts↗
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↗
USGS2019

Flood-inundation maps for Lake Champlain in Vermont and New York

In 2016, digital flood-inundation maps along the shoreline of Lake Champlain in Addison, Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Counties in Vermont and northern Clinton County in New York were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC). This report discusses the creation of updated static digital flood-inundation mapping, in 2018, to include the entire shoreline of Lake Champlain in the United States. 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 of flooding corresponding to selected water-surface elevations (stages) at the USGS lake gages on Lake Champlain. As a result of the record setting floods of May 2011 in Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River, the U.S. and Canadian governments requested that the IJC issue a reference for a study to identify how flood forecasting, preparedness, and mitigation could be improved in the Lake Champlain–Richelieu River Basin. The IJC submitted the Lake Champlain–Richelieu River Plan of Study to the governments of Canada and the United States in 2013. The flood-inundation maps in this study are one aspect of the task work outlined in the IJC 2013 Plan of Study. Wind and seiche effects (standing oscillating wave with a long wavelength) that can influence flooding along the Lake Champlain shoreline were not represented. The flood-inundation maps reflect 11 stages for Lake Champlain that are static for the entire area of the lake. Near-real-time stages at the USGS gages on Lake Champlain may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System website at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ ( https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN ) or from the National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ . Updated static flood-inundation boundary extents were created for Lake Champlain in Franklin, Chittenden, Addison, Rutland, and Grand Isle Counties in Vermont and Clinton, Essex, and Washington Counties in New York by using recently acquired (2009, 2012, 2014, and 2015) light detection and ranging (lidar) data. The corresponding flood-inundation maps may be referenced to any of the four active USGS lake gages on Lake Champlain. Of these four active lake gages, USGS lake gage 04295000, Richelieu River (Lake Champlain) at Rouses Point, N.Y.; USGS lake gage 04294500, Lake Champlain at Burlington, Vt.; USGS lake gage 04279085 Lake Champlain north of Whitehall, N.Y.; and USGS lake gage 04294413, Lake Champlain at Port Henry, N.Y., only the Richelieu River (Lake Champlain) at Rouses Point, N.Y., gage also serves as a National Weather Service prediction location. Lake Champlain static flood-inundation map boundary extents corresponding to the May 2011 peak flood stage (103.20 feet [ft], National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 29], as recorded at the USGS Rouses Point lake gage, were compared to the flood-inundation area extents determined from satellite imagery for the May 2011 flood (which incorporated documented high-water marks from the flood of May 2011) and were found to be in good agreement. The May 2011 flood is the highest recorded lake water level (stage) at the Rouses Point, N.Y., and Burlington, Vt., lake gages. Flood stages greater than 101.5 ft (NGVD 29) exceed the “major flood stage” as defined by the National Weather Service for USGS lake gage 04295000. Updated digital elevation models (DEMs) were created from the recent lidar data for Lake Champlain in Vermont and New York. These DEMs were used in determining the flood-inundation boundary and associated depth grids for 11 flood stages at 0.5-ft or 1-ft intervals from 100.0 to 106.0 ft (NGVD 29) as referenced to the USGS lake gages. In addition, the May 2011 flood-inundation area for elevation 103.20 ft (NGVD 29) (102.77 ft, North American Vertical Datum of 1988) was determined from these updated DEMs. The availability of these maps, along with online information regarding current stages at the USGS lake gages and forecasted high-flow stages from the National Weather Service at USGS lake gage 04295000, Richelieu River (Lake Champlain) at Rouses Point, N.Y., 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.

New York, Vermont↗