Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “INformation”

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 1,729 records · Page 96Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS2013

Flood-inundation maps for the DuPage River from Plainfield to Shorewood, Illinois, 2013

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 15.5-mi reach of the DuPage River from Plainfield to Shorewood, Illinois, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Will County Stormwater Management Planning Committee. 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 of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (gage heights or stages) at the USGS streamgage at DuPage River at Shorewood, Illinois (sta. no. 05540500). Current conditions at the USGS streamgage may be obtained on the Internet at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?05540500. 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 (http://water.weather.gov/ahps/). The NWS forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often colocated with USGS streamgages. The NWS-forecasted peak-stage information, also shown on the DuPage River at Shorewood inundation Web site, 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 hydraulic model was then used to determine nine water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-ft intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from NWS Action stage of 6 ft to the historic crest of 14.0 ft. The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) (derived from Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) data) by using a Geographic Information System (GIS) in order to delineate the area flooded at each water level. These maps, along with information on the Internet regarding current gage height 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 postflood recovery efforts.

Illinois↗
USGS2015

Flood-inundation maps for Big Creek from the McGinnis Ferry Road bridge to the confluence of Hog Wallow Creek, Alpharetta and Roswell, Georgia

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 12.4-mile reach of Big Creek that extends from 260 feet above the McGinnis Ferry Road bridge to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamgage at Big Creek below Hog Wallow Creek at Roswell, Georgia (02335757), were developed by the USGS in cooperation with the cities of Alpharetta and Roswell, 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 Big Creek near Alpharetta, Georgia (02335700). Real-time stage information from this USGS streamgage 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 for many streams where the USGS operates streamgages and provides flow data. The forecasted peak-stage information for the USGS streamgage at Big Creek near Alpharetta (02335700), available through the AHPS Web site, may be used in conjunction with the maps developed for this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. A one-dimensional step-backwater model was developed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC–RAS software for Big Creek and was used to compute flood profiles for a 12.4-mile reach of Big Creek. The model was calibrated using the most current (2015) stage-discharge relations at two USGS streamgages on Big Creek: Big Creek near Alpharetta (02335700) and Big Creek below Hog Wallow Creek at Roswell (02335757). The hydraulic model was then used to simulate 19 water-surface profiles at 0.5-foot intervals at the Big Creek near Alpharetta streamgage. The profiles ranged from just above bankfull stage (6.0 feet) to approximately 1.95 feet above the highest recorded water level at the Alpharetta streamgage site (15.0 feet). 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 3.0-foot horizontal resolution—to delineate the area flooded at each 0.5-foot interval of stream stage. The availability of these maps, when combined with real-time stage information from USGS streamgages and forecasted stream stage from the NWS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with critical information during flood-response activities such as evacuations and road closures, in addition to post-flood recovery efforts.

Georgia↗
USGS2023

Geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within northern Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas

During 2020–22, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Edwards Aquifer Authority, revised a previous publication that described the geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within northern Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas. This report presents the refined maps and descriptions of geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within northern Bexar and Comal Counties that resulted from additional field data. Two informal geologic units and their corresponding informal hydrostratigraphic unit (HSU) names are introduced in this report; these informal units were identified during geologic mapping work done in counties adjoining the study area. Hydrostratigraphically, the rocks exposed in the study area represent a section of the upper confining unit to the Edwards aquifer, the Edwards aquifer, the upper zone of the Trinity aquifer, the middle zone of the Trinity aquifer, and the lower confining unit to the middle zone of the Trinity aquifer. The Washita, Eagle Ford, Austin, and Taylor Groups are generally considered to be the upper confining unit to the Edwards aquifer. The Edwards aquifer was subdivided into nine informally named HSUs (from top to bottom) as follows: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, Seco Pass, and VIII. The upper zone of the Trinity aquifer was subdivided into five informal HSUs and two subunits (from top to bottom) as follows: cavernous, Camp Bullis, upper evaporite, fossiliferous (subunits: upper and lower), and lower evaporite. The middle zone of the Trinity aquifer was subdivided into nine named HSUs (from top to bottom) as follows: Bulverde, Little Blanco, Twin Sisters, Doeppenschmidt, Herff Falls (where present), Rust, Honey Creek, Hensell, and Cow Creek. The middle zone of the Trinity aquifer is underlain by the confining Hammett HSU. Groundwater recharge and flow paths in the study area are influenced not only by the hydrostratigraphic characteristics of the individual HSUs but also by faults and fractures.

Texas↗
USGS2005

Drought-sensitive aquifer settings in southeastern Pennsylvania

This report describes the results of a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, to determine drought-sensitive aquifer settings in southeastern Pennsylvania. Because all or parts of southeastern Pennsylvania have been in drought-warning or drought-emergency status during 6 of the past 10 years from 1994 through 2004, this information should aid well owners, drillers, and water-resource managers in guiding appropriate well construction and sustainable use of Pennsylvania's water resources. 'Drought-sensitive' aquifer settings are defined for this study as areas unable to supply adequate quantities of water to wells during drought. Using information from previous investigations and a knowledge of the hydrogeology and topography of the study area, drought-sensitive aquifer settings in southeastern Pennsylvania were hypothesized as being associated with two factors - a water-table decline (WTD) index and topographic setting. The WTD index is an estimate of the theoretical water-table decline at the ground-water divide for a hypothetical aquifer with idealized geometry. The index shows the magnitude of ground-water decline after cessation of recharge is a function of (1) distance from stream to divide, (2) ground-water recharge rate, (3) transmissivity, (4) specific yield, and (5) duration of the drought. WTD indices were developed for 39 aquifers that were subsequently grouped into categories of high, moderate, and low WTD index. Drought-sensitive settings determined from the hypothesized factors were compared to locations of wells known to have been affected (gone dry, replaced, or deepened) during recent droughts. Information collected from well owners, drillers, and public agencies identified 2,016 wells affected by drought during 1998-2002. Most of the available data on the location of drought-affected wells in the study area were from Chester and Montgomery Counties because those counties have well-construction regulations that identify wells that failed during drought. The locations of drought-affected wells in Chester and Montgomery Counties indicated the most highly sensitive settings are uplands and slopes in aquifers with high WTD index and uplands in aquifers with moderate WTD index. The least sensitive settings are in aquifers with low WTD index, in valleys, or on slopes. A map was developed showing the relative drought sensitivity (low, moderate, and high) of aquifers in southeastern Pennsylvania. Study results were limited by the inability to obtain much information about the location of drought-affected wells, with the exception of Montgomery and Chester Counties. Also, the construction characteristics (particularly depth) of drought-affected wells generally were not available. Well depth could be used to distinguish between problems caused by shallow well depth (generally less than 100 ft) and those caused by deficiency of the aquifer to supply water. With the exception of owner-derived information from a public survey on drought-affected wells (35 wells), depth data were not obtained. Data from the 35 drought-affected wells indicated most were drilled (not dug) and were completed to depths greater than 100 feet. This finding indicates that the affects of recent droughts in southeastern Pennsylvania were not restricted to shallow dug wells, but also affected deeper drilled wells.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2006

Water-Table Levels and Gradients, Nevada, 1947-2004

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began a program to protect the quality of ground water in areas other than ground-water protection areas. These other sensitive ground water areas (OSGWA) are areas that are not currently, but could eventually be, used as a source of drinking water. The OSGWA program specifically addresses existing wells that are used for underground injection of motor-vehicle waste. To help determine whether a well is in an OSGWA, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection needs statewide information on depth to water and the water table, which partly control the susceptibility of ground water to contamination and contaminant transport. This report describes a study that used available maps and data to create statewide maps of water-table and depth-to-water contours and surfaces, assessed temporal changes in water-table levels, and characterized water-table gradients in selected areas of Nevada. A literature search of published water-table and depth-to-water contours produced maps of varying detail and scope in 104 reports published from 1948 to 2004. Where multiple maps covered the same area, criteria were used to select the most recent, detailed maps that covered the largest area and had plotted control points. These selection criteria resulted in water-table and depth-to-water contours that are based on data collected from 1947 to 2004 being selected from 39 reports. If not already available digitally, contours and control points were digitized from selected maps, entered into a geographic information system, and combined to make a statewide map of water-table contours. Water-table surfaces were made by using inverse distance weighting to estimate the water table between contours and then gridding the estimates. Depth-to-water surfaces were made by subtracting the water-table altitude from the land-surface altitude. Water-table and depth-to-water surfaces were made for only 21 percent of Nevada because of a lack of information for 49 of 232 basins and for most consolidated-rock hydrogeologic units. Depth to water is commonly less than 50 feet beneath valley floors, 50 to 500 feet beneath alluvial fans, and more than 500 feet in some areas such as north-central and southern Nevada. In areas without water-table information, greasewood and mapped ground-water discharge areas are good indicators of depth to water less than 100 feet. The average difference between measured depth to water and depth to water estimated from surfaces was 90 feet. More recent and detailed information may be needed than that presented in this report to evaluate a specific site. Temporal changes in water-table levels were evaluated for 1,981 wells with 10 or more years between the first depth-to-water measurement and last measurement made since 1990. The greatest increases in depth to water occurred where the first measurement was less than 200 feet, where the time between first and last measurements was 40 years or less, and for wells between 100 and 600 feet deep. These characteristics describe production wells where ground water is fairly shallow in recently developing areas such as the Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas. In basins with little pumping, 90 percent of the changes during the past 100 years are within ?20 feet, which is about the natural variation in the water table due to changes in the climate and recharge. Gradients in unconsolidated sediments of the Great Basin are generally steep near mountain fronts, shallow beneath valley floors, and depend on variables such as the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of adjacent consolidated rocks and recharge. Gradients beneath alluvial fans and valley floors at 58 sites were correlated with selected variables to identify those variables that are statistically related. Water-table measurements at three sites were used to characterize the water table between the valley floor and consolidated rock. Water-table gradients beneath alluvial fan

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2010

Estimated Withdrawals and Use of Water in Colorado, 2005

The future health and economic welfare of the people and environment of Colorado depend on a continuous supply of fresh water. Detailed, comprehensive information on the use of water from Colorado's diverse surface-water and groundwater resources is important to water managers and planners by providing information they need to quantify current stresses and estimate and plan for future water needs. As part of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Use Information Program (NWUIP), Statewide water withdrawal and water-use data have been collected or estimated and summarized in this report by county and by four-digit hydrologic unit code for the following seven water-use categories: irrigation (crop and golf course), public supply, self-supplied domestic, self-supplied industrial, livestock, mining, and thermoelectric power generation. A summary for instream water use for hydroelectric power generation also is included. This report is published in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board. In 2005, an estimated 13,581.22 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) was withdrawn from groundwater and surface-water sources in Colorado for the seven water-use categories. Withdrawals from surface water represented about 11,035 Mgal/d, or 81.3 percent of the total, whereas withdrawals from groundwater sources represented an estimated 2,546 Mgal/d or 18.7 percent of the total. Irrigation (combined crop and golf course) totaled 12,362.49 Mgal/d or 91 percent of the total water withdrawals in the State of Colorado. Crop irrigation accounted for 99.7 percent (12,321.85 Mgal/d) of the irrigation, whereas the 243 turf golf courses in Colorado accounted for 0.3 percent (40.64 Mgal/d) of the total irrigation water withdrawals. Total withdrawals for the other water-use categories were public supply, 864.17 Mgal/d; self-supplied domestic, 34.43 Mgal/d; self-supplied industrial, 142.44 Mgal/d; livestock, 33.06 Mgal/d; mining, 21.42 Mgal/d (includes both fresh and saline water); and thermoelectric, 123.21 Mgal/d. The counties with the largest total withdrawals (greater than 500 Mgal/d) were Mesa, Weld, Rio Grande, Montrose, Gunnison, and Saguache. Counties with the smallest total withdrawals (less than 5 Mgal/d) were Clear Creek, Gilpin, and San Juan. Four-digit hydrologic unit codes with the greatest withdrawals were 1019 (South Platte River Basin), 1301 (Rio Grande Basin), and 1102 (Arkansas River Basin); the high withdrawal rates were driven by crop irrigation withdrawals. Total instream water use for hydroelectric power generation was 5,253.60 Mgal/d. Groundwater withdrawals were estimated for 2004 for the bedrock and overlying alluvial aquifers in the Denver Basin for irrigation, public supply, commercial/industrial, household use only, and domestic/livestock water-use categories. Withdrawals were estimated for input into the USGS Denver Basin model by using the equations in the Senate Bill 96-074 groundwater model. The greatest withdrawals were for public supply. The smallest withdrawals were for household-use-only wells. Douglas County had the greatest groundwater withdrawals (183.98 Mgal/d), whereas Broomfield County had the smallest (3.09 Mgal/d). Of the seven Denver Basin aquifers, the Lower Arapahoe aquifer had the greatest total estimated withdrawals (287.11 Mgal/d), with Douglas County having the greatest public-supply withdrawal of any county (95.29 Mgal/d) from this aquifer. The Upper Dawson aquifer was the least used of the Denver Basin aquifers, based on estimated withdrawals of 17.64 Mgal/d. As part of the Colorado Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI), forecasts of future water demand were made based on information such as population, climate, and then-current (2000) water-use information and did not include the effects of future water conservation. Categories compared between estimates in the SWSI baseline forecasted water demand and the USGS water-use compilation were limited to county population and w

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

Overview of groundwater quality in the Piceance Basin, western Colorado, 1946--2009

Groundwater-quality data from public and private sources for the period 1946 to 2009 were compiled and put into a common data repository for the Piceance Basin. The data repository is available on the web at http://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/cwqdr/Piceance/index.shtml. A subset of groundwater-quality data from the repository was compiled, reviewed, and checked for quality assurance for this report. The resulting dataset consists of the most recently collected sample from 1,545 wells, 1,007 (65 percent) of which were domestic wells. From those samples, the following constituents were selected for presentation in this report: dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, pH, major ions (chloride, sulfate, fluoride), trace elements (arsenic, barium, iron, manganese, selenium), nitrate, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, methane, and the stable isotopic compositions of water and methane. Some portion of recharge to most of the wells for which data were available was derived from precipitation (most likely snowmelt), as indicated by δ2H [H2O] and δ18O[H2O] values that plot along the Global Meteoric Water Line and near the values for snow samples collected in the study area. Ninety-three percent of the samples were oxic, on the basis of concentrations of dissolved oxygen that were greater than or equal to 0.5 milligrams per liter. Concentration data were compared with primary and secondary drinking-water standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Constituents that exceeded the primary standards were arsenic (13 percent), selenium (9.2 percent), fluoride (8.4 percent), barium (4.1 percent), nitrate (1.6 percent), and benzene (0.6 percent). Concentrations of toluene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene did not exceed standards in any samples. Constituents that exceeded the secondary standard were dissolved solids (72 percent), sulfate (37 percent), manganese (21 percent), iron (16 percent), and chloride (10 percent). Drinking-water standards have not been established for methane, which was detected in 24 percent of samples. Methane concentrations were greater than or equal to 1 milligram per liter in 8.5 percent of samples. Methane isotopic data for samples collected primarily from domestic wells in Garfield County indicate that methane in samples with relative high methane concentrations were derived from both biogenic and thermogenic sources. Many of the constituents that exceeded standards, such as arsenic, fluoride, iron, and manganese, were derived from rock and sediment in aquifers. Elevated nitrate concentrations were most likely derived from human sources such as fertilizer and human or animal waste. Information about the geologic unit or aquifer in which a well was completed generally was not provided by data sources. However, limited data indicate that Quaternary deposits in Garfield and Mesa Counties, the Wasatch Formation in Garfield County, and the Green River Formation in Rio Blanco County had some of the highest median concentrations of selected constituents. Variations in concentration with depth could not be evaluated because of the general lack of well-depth and water-level data. Concentrations of several important constituents, such as arsenic, manganese, methane, and nitrate, were related to concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Concentrations of arsenic, manganese, and methane were significantly higher in groundwater with low dissolved-oxygen concentrations than in groundwater with high dissolved-oxygen concentrations. In contrast, concentrations of nitrate were significantly higher in groundwater with high dissolved-oxygen concentrations than in groundwater with low dissolved-oxygen concentrations. These results indicate that measurements of dissolved oxygen may be a useful indicator of groundwater vulnerability to some human-derived contaminants and enrichment from some natural constituents. Assessing such a large and diverse dataset as the one available through the repository poses unique challenges for reporting on groundwater quality in the study area. The repository contains data from several studies that differed widely in purpose and scope. In addition to this variability in available data, gaps exist spatially, temporally, and analytically in the repository. For example, groundwater-quality data in the repository were not evenly distributed throughout the study area. Several key water-quality constituents or indicators, such as dissolved oxygen, were underrepresented in the repository. Ancillary information, such as well depth, depth to water, and the geologic unit or aquifer in which a well was completed, was missing for more than 50 percent of samples. Future monitoring could avoid several limitations of the repository by making relatively minor changes to sample- collection and data-reporting protocols. Field measurements for dissolved oxygen could be added to sampling protocols, for example. Information on well construction and the geologic unit or aquifer in which a well was completed should be part of the water-quality dataset. Such changes would increase the comparability of data from different monitoring programs and also add value to each program individually and to that of the regional dataset as a whole. Other changes to monitoring programs could require greater resources, such as sampling for a basic set of constituents that is relevant to major water-quality issues in the regional study area. Creation of such a dataset for the regional study area would help to provide the kinds of information needed to characterize background conditions and the spatial and temporal variability in constituent concentrations associated with those conditions. Without such information, it is difficult to identify departures from background that might be associated with human activities.

Colorado↗
USGS2012

Characterization of the hydrologic resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico, and identification of hydrologic data gaps, 2011

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with San Miguel County, New Mexico, conducted a study to assess publicly available information regarding the hydrologic resources of San Miguel County and to identify data gaps in that information and hydrologic information that could aid in the management of available water resources. The USGS operates four continuous annual streamgages in San Miguel County. Monthly discharge at these streamgages is generally bimodally distributed, with most runoff corresponding to spring runoff and to summer monsoonal rains. Data compiled since 1951 on the geology and groundwater resources of San Miguel County are generally consistent with the original characterization of depth and availability of groundwater resources and of source aquifers. Subsequent exploratory drilling identified deep available groundwater in some locations. Most current (2011) development of groundwater resources is in western San Miguel County, particularly in the vicinity of El Creston hogback, the hogback ridge just west of Las Vegas, where USGS groundwater-monitoring wells indicate that groundwater levels are declining. Regarding future studies to address identified data gaps, the ability to evaluate and quantify surface-water resources, both as runoff and as potential groundwater recharge, could be enhanced by expanding the network of streamgages and groundwater-monitoring wells throughout the county. A series of seepage surveys along the lengths of the rivers could help to determine locations of surface-water losses to and gains from the local groundwater system and could help to quantify the component of streamflow attributable to irrigation return flow; associated synoptic water-quality sampling could help to identify potential effects to water quality attributable to irrigation return flow. Effects of groundwater withdrawals on streamflow could be assessed by constructing monitoring wells along transects between production wells and stream reaches of interest to monitor decline or recovery of the water table, to quantify the timing and extent of water-table response, and to identify the spatial extent of capture zones. Assessment of groundwater potential could be aided by a county-wide distribution of water-level information and by a series of maps of groundwater potential, compiled for each individual aquifer, including saline aquifers, for which the potential for municipal use through desalination could be explored. A county-wide geographic information system hydrologic geodatabase could provide a comprehensive picture of water use in San Miguel County and could be used by San Miguel County as a decision-support tool for future management decisions.

New Mexico↗
USGS2014

Flood-inundation maps for the West Branch Susquehanna River near the Boroughs of Lewisburg and Milton, Pennsylvania

Digital flood-inundation maps for an approximate 8-mile reach of the West Branch Susquehanna River from approximately 2 miles downstream from the Borough of Lewisburg, extending upstream to approximately 1 mile upstream from the Borough of Milton, Pennsylvania, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). 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 the estimated areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage 01553500, West Branch Susquehanna River at Lewisburg, Pa. In addition, the information has been provided to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) for incorporation into their Susquehanna Inundation Map Viewer (SIMV) flood warning system ( http://maps.srbc.net/simv/ ). The National Weather Service (NWS) forecasted peak-stage information ( http://water.weather.gov/ahps ) for USGS streamgage 01553500, West Branch Susquehanna River at Lewisburg, Pa., 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. Calibration of the model was achieved using the most current stage-discharge relations (rating number 11.1) at USGS streamgage 01553500, West Branch Susquehanna River at Lewisburg, Pa., a documented water-surface profile from the December 2, 2010, flood, and recorded peak stage data. The hydraulic model was then used to determine 26 water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum ranging from 14 feet (ft) to 39 ft. Modeled flood stages, as defined by NWS, include Action Stage, 14 ft; Flood Stage, 18 ft; Moderate Flood Stage, 23 ft; and Major Flood Stage, 28 ft. Geographic information system (GIS) technology was then used to combine the simulated water-surface profiles with a digital elevation model (DEM) derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with World Wide Web 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.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2015

Flood-inundation maps and wetland restoration suitability index for the Blue River and selected tributaries, Kansas City, Missouri, and vicinity, 2012

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 39.7-mile reach of the Blue River and selected tributaries (Brush Creek, Indian Creek, and Dyke Branch) at Kansas City, Missouri, and vicinity, were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Kansas City, Missouri. The flood-inundation maps, accessed through the USGS Flood-Inundation Mapping Science Web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/, depict estimates of the spatial extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at 15 reference streamgages and associated stream reaches in the Blue River Basin. Near-real-time stage data from the streamgages 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 (AHPS) at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/, which also forecasts flood hydrographs at selected sites. Flood profiles were computed for each of 15 reaches by means of one-dimensional or two-dimensional hydraulic models. The models were calibrated by using the current stage-streamflow relations at 10 USGS streamgages and documented high-water marks from the flood of June 14, 2010. Hydraulic models were then used to compute water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from the National Weather Service Action stage, or near bankfull streamflow, through the stage corresponding to, or exceeding, the estimated 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability flood (500-year recurrence interval flood). The simulated water-surface profiles were then combined with a geographic information system (GIS) terrain model derived from light detection and ranging (lidar) data having a vertical accuracy of less than 0.6 foot and maximum nominal horizontal post spacing of 2.46–3.28 feet to delineate the area flooded at each 1-foot increment of stage. The availability of these flood-inundation 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, as well as for postflood recovery efforts. Additional information in this report includes maps of simulated stream velocity for an 8.2-mile, two-dimensional modeled reach of the Blue River and a Wetland Restoration Suitability Index (WRSI) generated for the study area that was based on hydrologic, topographic, and land-use digital feature layers. The calculated WRSI for the selected flood-plain area ranged from 1 (least suitable for possible wetland mitigation efforts) to 10 (most suitable for possible wetland mitigation efforts). A WRSI of 5 to 10 is most closely associated with existing riparian wetlands in the study area. The WRSI allows for the identification of lands along the Blue River and selected tributaries that are most suitable for restoration or creation of wetlands. Alternatively, the index can be used to identify and avoid disturbances to areas with the highest potential to support healthy sustainable riparian wetlands.

Missouri↗
USGS2014

Methods for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Arizona, developed with unregulated and rural peak-flow data through water year 2010

Flooding is among the worst natural disasters responsible for loss of life and property in Arizona, underscoring the importance of accurate estimation of flood magnitude for proper structural design and floodplain mapping. Twenty-four years of additional peak-flow data have been recorded since the last comprehensive regional flood frequency analysis conducted in Arizona. Periodically, flood frequency estimates and regional regression equations must be revised to maintain the accurate estimation of flood frequency and magnitude. Annual peak-flow data collected through water year 2010 were compiled from 448 unregulated streamflow-gaging stations, hereafter referred to as streamgages, in Arizona having a minimum of 10 years of record. Flood frequency estimates were first computed with station (or at-site) skew using the Expected Moments Algorithm with a multiple Grubbs-Beck test to identify multiple potentially influential low flows to fit a Pearson Type III distribution. Next, a multiple step Bayesian least-squares-regression approach was used to determine a new statewide regional skew of −0.09. No basin characteristics analyzed were statistically significant in explaining the variation in skew and as a result, the constant model was chosen as the best regional skew model for the Arizona study area. The mean square error used in Bulletin 17B (B17B) of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data is used to describe the precision of the regional skew. The constant model had a mean square error equal to 0.08, which corresponds to an effective record length of 85 years. This is a marked improvement over a previous Arizona regional skew analysis, with a reported mean square error of 0.31, for a corresponding effective record length of around 17 years. Thus the new regional model had almost five times the information content (as measured by effective record length) of that calculated in USGS Water Supply Paper 2433, published in 1997, or the value of 0.302 reported in the B17B generalized skew map. The flood frequency estimates were recalculated using a weighted skew of the station and regional skew. Station flood frequency estimates for each streamgage are presented for the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities. Geographical information systems were used to compute basin characteristic information for each streamgage for the purpose of developing regional equations to estimate flood statistics at ungaged basins. Five hydrologic flood regions in Arizona were defined in a multivariate regionalization process based on mean basin elevation, mean annual precipitation, and soil permeability. A regional generalized least-squares-regression analysis was used to develop five sets of equations from 344 nonredundant streamgages, corresponding to five regions, for estimating the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probabilities at ungaged basins in Arizona. The regression equations developed for these five regions were based on one or more of the statistically significant explanatory variables: drainage area, mean basin elevation, and mean annual precipitation. Average standard errors of prediction for the regression regions for the five regions ranged from 27 to 122 percent and the pseudo-coefficients of determination (pseudo-R 2 ), a measure of the proportion of peak-flow variation that is explained by the basin characteristics, ranged from 68 to 98 percent. Regression equations for Central Highlands (region 4) had the lowest model error and the greatest pseudo-R 2 metrics. The equations for Colorado Plateau (region 2) regression equations generally had greater model error and lower pseudo-R 2 metrics. The improvement of regional regression equation model error and pseudo-R 2 metrics was related to higher numbers of streamgages, longer period of record, and even spatial coverage within a region. The regional regression equations were integrated into the U.S. Geological Survey’s StreamStats program. The StreamStats program is a national map-based web application that allows the public to easily access published flood frequency and basin characteristic statistics. The interactive web application allows a user to select a point within a watershed (gaged or ungaged) and retrieve flood-frequency estimates derived from the current regional regression equations and geographic information system data within the selected basin. StreamStats provides users with an efficient and accurate means for retrieving the most up to date flood frequency and basin characteristic data. StreamStats is intended to provide consistent statistics, minimize user error, and reduce the need for large datasets and costly geographic information system software.

Arizona↗
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↗
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↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota

About this volume The Williston Basin, which includes parts of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota in the United States, has been a leading domestic oil and gas producing area. To better understand the potential effects of energy development on environmental resources in the Williston Basin, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, and in support of the needs identified by the Bakken Federal Executive Group (consisting of representatives from 13 Federal agencies and Tribal groups), began work to synthesize existing information on science topics to support management decisions related to energy development. This report is divided into four chapters (A–D). Chapter A provides an executive summary of the report and principal findings from chapters B–D. Chapter B provides a brief compilation of information regarding the history of energy development, physiography, climate, land use, demographics, and related studies in the Williston Basin. Chapter C synthesizes current information about water resources, identifies potential effects from energy development, and summarizes water resources research and information needs in the Williston Basin. Chapter D summarizes information about ecosystems, species of conservation concern, and potential effects to those species from energy development in the Williston Basin.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2017

Evaluation and use of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Watersheds Needs Survey data to quantify nutrient loads to surface water, 1978–2012

Changes in municipal and industrial point-source discharges over time have been an important factor affecting nutrient trends in many of the Nation’s streams and rivers. This report documents how three U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national datasets—the Permit Compliance System, the Integrated Compliance Information System, and the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey—were evaluated for use in the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment project to assess the causes of nutrient trends. This report also describes how a database of total nitrogen load and total phosphorous load was generated for select wastewater treatment facilities in the United States based on information reported in the EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. Nutrient loads were calculated for the years 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 based on average nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations for reported treatment levels and on annual reported flow values. The EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), which monitor point-source facility discharges, together are the Nation’s most spatially comprehensive dataset for nutrients released to surface waters. However, datasets for many individual facilities are incomplete, the PCS/ICIS historical data date back only to 1989, and historical data are available for only a limited number of facilities. Additionally, inconsistencies in facility reporting make it difficult to track or identify changes in nutrient discharges over time. Previous efforts made by the U.S. Geological Survey to “fill in” gaps in the PCS/ICIS data were based on statistical methods—missing data were filled in through the use of a statistical model based on the Standard Industrial Classification code, size, and flow class of the facility and on seasonal nutrient discharges of similar facilities. This approach was used to estimate point-source loads for a single point in time; it was not evaluated for use in generating a consistent data series over time. Another national EPA dataset that is available is the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS), conducted every 4 years beginning 1973. The CWNS is an assessment of the capital needs of wastewater facilities to meet the water-quality goals set in the Clean Water Act. Data collected about these facilities include location and contact information for the facilities; population served; flow and treatment level of the facility; estimated capital needs to upgrade, repair, or improve facilities for water quality; and nonpoint-source best management practices. Total nitrogen and total phosphorous load calculations for each of the CWNS years were based on treatment level information and average annual outflow (in million gallons per day) from each of the facilities that had reported it. Treatment levels categories (such as Primary, Secondary, or Advanced) were substituted with average total nitrogen and total phosphorous concentrations for each treatment level based on those reported in literature. The CWNS dataset, like the PCS/ICIS dataset, has years where facilities did not report either a treatment level or an annual average outflow, or both. To fill in the data gaps, simple linear assumptions were made based on each facility’s responses to the survey in years bracketing the data gap or immediately before or after the data gap if open ended. Treatment level and flow data unique to each facility were used to complete the CWNS dataset for that facility.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
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 Cedar Creek at 18th Street at Auburn, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 1.9-mile reach of Cedar Creek at Auburn, Indiana (Ind.), from the First Street bridge, downstream to the streamgage at 18th Street, then ending approximately 1,100 feet (ft) downstream of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, 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 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 on Cedar Creek at 18th Street at Auburn, Ind. (station number 04179520). Near-real-time stages at this streamgage may be obtained from the USGS National Water Information System at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ , although forecasts of flood hydrographs are not available at this site (ABBI3). 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 relation at the Cedar Creek at 18th Street at Auburn, Ind. streamgage and the documented high-water marks from the flood of March 11, 2009. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to compute seven water-surface profiles for flood stages referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from 7 ft, or near bankfull, to 13 ft, in 1-foot increments. 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 Cedar Creek at 18th Street at Auburn, Ind., and stream information from the National Weather Service, 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↗