SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Ocean Engineering”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

219 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

USGS2024

Skill assessment of a total water level and coastal change forecast during the landfall of a hurricane

The Total Water Level and Coastal Change Forecast (TWL&CC Forecast) provides coastal communities with 6-day notice of potential elevated water levels and coastal change (i.e., dune erosion, overwash, or inundation) on sandy beaches that threatens safety, infrastructure, or resources. This continuously operating model provides hourly information for select regions along U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean coastlines. The objective of this work is to assess the skill of forecasts during a period of elevated water levels along the coasts of North Carolina (NC) and South Carolina, USA caused by Hurricane Isaias in August 2020, using a combination of observations and model hindcasts. Water levels and waves were observed throughout the storm at three locations near Wrightsville Beach, NC, which provided information to assess forecast skill; a wave buoy offshore, a tide gage at a local pier, and a pressure sensor deployed at the pier. In addition to observations, the non-hydrostatic phase-resolving model SWASH (Simulating WAves till SHore) was forced with hourly wave energy spectra derived from a coupled Delft3D-SWAN simulation during the peak of Isaias, to complement observations by computing nearshore wave height and wave-induced setup and runup at the shoreline. During the storm peak, SWASH-simulated water levels at the sensor position were comparable to those at the maximum landward extent (bias = −0.05 m; gain = 0.26; r 2 = 0.99), suggesting that observations at the USGS sensor location were a useful proxy for total water level (TWL; sum of tide, surge and wave runup) at the shoreline that are predicted by the TWL&CC Forecast. The TWL forecast at Wrightsville Beach was consistent with observations from the USGS sensor (bias = −0.38 m and −0.74 m, scatter index = 0.22 and 0.28 for the two forecast model grids considered, respectively; weighted regression considering model uncertainty explained 95 percent of variability in observed TWL). Observed TWL was within the confidence interval of the TWL&CC Forecast for the 5 h at the storm peak. Forecast mean water levels (MWL; sum of tide, surge and wave setup) and tide gage observations were also consistent (bias = 0.07 m and 0.02 m for the forecast model grids; scatter index = 0.46; r 2 = 0.80). Forecast MWL at the storm peak was within 0.06 m of the observed MWL from the tide gage for both sites. In the region where Isaias made landfall, eight additional pressure sensors were compared to the peak TWL forecast (bias = 0.14 m; scatter index = 0.18). Forecast TWL explained 90 percent of observed variability in TWL when considering uncertainty of the forecast with a weighted regression. The results demonstrate that wave-driven water levels contributed a significant portion of the forecast TWL during Isaias (52 percent during the three peak hours of the storm), and that TWL were represented using the forecast model. Mean absolute error of the coastal change forecast and observed overwash is 0.4 and 0.14 for the two forecast model grids considered. The skill demonstrated by this computationally efficient method indicates that the forecasting system can provide fast and reliable predictions of TWL across hundreds of km of coastline at sub-km resolution, days to hours in advance of when storms threaten coastal regions.

Coastal Engineering↗

USGS2022

Evaluation of the Bushy Park Reservoir three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water-quality model, South Carolina, 2012–15

The Bushy Park Reservoir is a relatively shallow impoundment in southeastern South Carolina. The reservoir, located under a semi-tropical climate, is the principal water supply for the city of Charleston, South Carolina, and the surrounding areas including the Bushy Park Industrial Complex. Although there was an adequate supply of freshwater in the reservoir in 2022, water-quality concerns are present over taste-and-odor and saltwater-intrusion issues. From 2013 to 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Charleston Water System, engaged in a multi-year study of the hydrology and hydrodynamics of Bushy Park Reservoir to better understand factors affecting water-quality conditions in the reservoir. As part of this study, Charleston Water System worked with Tetra Tech, Inc., a consulting and engineering firm, to develop a Bushy Park Reservoir hydrodynamic and water-quality modeling framework, built upon earlier efforts by both Tetra Tech and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the completion of the new modeling framework, the USGS was requested to evaluate the calibrated hydrodynamic and water-quality model. The Bushy Park Reservoir Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model was calibrated for the time period from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. The general modeling approach for the newly revised modeling framework, as briefly detailed in this report, was developed with EFDC. The EFDC is a grid-based modeling package that can simulate three-dimensional flow, transport, and water quality in surface-water systems. This report evaluated the capacity of Tetra Tech’s Bushy Park EFDC model to simulate water discharge, water circulation, surface elevations, temperature, salinity, and other water-quality parameters. The USGS model review focused specifically on the following criteria: (1) determine if the model, with additional effort, could be developed into an adequate planning tool for Bushy Park Reservoir; (2) assess the capacity of the model to specifically address water-quality issues in the reservoir related to taste-and-odor and saltwater intrusions; and, (3) evaluate three preliminary water-management scenarios related to reduced water withdrawals in the reservoir and the effect on saltwater intrusion. Overall, the model was able to simulate discharge, flow velocity, and water-surface elevations with generally good agreement between the simulated and measured values. Specifically, the model was able to demonstrate good agreement for discharge at two USGS continuous discharge locations (USGS station 02172002; USGS station 02172040), with Wilmott index of agreements of 0.86 and 0.75, respectively. A total of seven USGS streamgages, located on the West Branch of the Cooper River, Durham Canal, and the Cooper River, were available for water-surface elevations, with index of agreements ranging from 0.74 to 0.99. However, model-simulated water-surface elevation ranges were appreciably high (compared to measured ranges) for two locations near Pinopolis Dam, farthest upstream on the West Branch of the Cooper River. This result may indicate that too much simulated tidal energy propagated through the model domain. For water temperature, 16 calibration stations were available for at least part of the 4-year simulation. The index of agreement range for temperature comparisons was from 0.95 to 1.00, indicating excellent agreement between the measured and simulated results. One of the primary future applications for the Bushy Park Reservoir EFDC model is to determine the extent of saltwater intrusions. A wide range in the salinity prediction quality was simulated with the model. The prediction quality ranged from an index of agreement of 0.15 at Cooper River approximately 2.75 miles southeast of the Tee, South Carolina, to 0.92 at West Branch Cooper River near Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Although the model did not accurately simulate some of the larger salinity deviations resulting during individual hydrologic events, the seasonal salinity trends were adequately simulated with the model during the study period (2012–15). Therefore, it may be difficult to simulate extreme hydrologic events, such as during large storms, where high salinity water is exchanged with Bushy Park Reservoir. There was agreement in model simulation with the measured data either on the quantitative index of agreement values or qualitative agreement in the seasonal salinity data trends. For water quality, the index of agreement values were generally low for total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, and orthophosphate. Although general trends were adequately simulated at specific stations, particularly for Bushy Park Reservoir, the model-simulated fit was low across all the constituents described above with index of agreements usually below 0.50. A limitation for simulating nutrient concentrations across the model domain was the lack of characterization for the constituents directly entering Bushy Park Reservoir, or the lack of data directly attributed to the boundary condition (for example, the Cooper River). The other two calibrated water-quality constituents (besides the nutrients mentioned above) were dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a . Dissolved oxygen varied from index of agreement values from 0.58 to 0.94 for 11 stations, generally indicating agreement with the available measured data. Chlorophyll a , calibrated for seven stations, had a wider range from 0.11 to 0.74 for the index of agreement. With the current modeling framework, taste-and-odor events, related to cyanobacterial blooms, cannot be directly simulated. However, indirect estimates of cyanobacteria concentrations may be obtained by using the chlorophyll a model outputs, which represent total phytoplankton biomass, and the phytoplankton biovolume data by group (diatoms, green algae, cyanobacteria and others) collected from 2012 to 2015. For the Bushy Park Reservoir modeling framework to be used directly for taste-and-odor issues, cyanobacteria must be simulated and calibrated based on observations of cyanobacteria biomass concentrations. In addition to the cyanobacteria sampling conducted within the reservoir between 2012 and 2015, the new model calibration would also require new algae biomass data-collection efforts to characterize the external sources of cyanobacteria entering the Bushy Park Reservoir from tributaries, as well as the internal cycling, production, and decay of cyanobacteria in the hydrologic system. Further improvements to the EFDC model would include expanding the collection of boundary condition datasets, such as water-quality monitoring to determine improved nutrient loads into the model domain. Along with improved water-quality monitoring for the major boundary conditions, continuous discharge, for both Foster Creek and the Back River, would further constrain the flow balance and the loads into Bushy Park Reservoir. In addition to better boundary-condition characterization, it is important to better characterize possible shortcomings specifically to the model domain, such as the grid resolution, bathymetry, and numerical hydrodynamic errors. Further consideration of the model may involve a sensitivity analysis to determine if errors in the simulation outputs, such as discharge, water-surface elevations, and salinity, were more likely caused by poor boundary condition characterization or, specifically, the model setup. Three model scenarios were run with the revised Bushy Park Reservoir model: (1) reduced withdrawals from one of the large intake-discharge locations for Bushy Park Reservoir, the Williams Station; (2) elevated (above background levels) ocean water level causing saltwater intrusion from the ocean through Durham Canal into Bushy Park Reservoir; and (3) overtopping of the Back River Dam at the southernmost end of Bushy Park Reservoir. For the reduced withdrawals scenarios, the largest shift in flow resulted near the Williams Station intake, with the next largest flow change at the southern end of Bushy Park Reservoir, and a net increase in flow out of the Bushy Park Reservoir to the Cooper River by way of the Durham Canal. The effect resulting from scenario 3 on water quality and salinity was small, with larger increases for dissolved oxygen than other constituents at several monitoring stations. For the two scenarios related to saltwater intrusion (including dam overtopping), the changes in salinity generally were found to dissipate in the following 2 weeks and generally back to baseline salinity conditions within 3 months. This result did vary depending on the severity of the storm or length of the dam overtopping event.

South Carolina↗

USGS1972

Regional and other general factors bearing on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards to coastal communities of southeastern Alaska

The great Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, brought into sharp focus the need for engineering geologic studies in seismically active regions. As a result, nine communities in southeastern Alaska were selected for reconnaissance investigations as an integral part of an overall program to evaluate earthquake and other geologic hazards in most of the larger Alaska coastal communities. This report gives background information on the regional and other general factors that bear on these evaluations. Southeastern Alaska, about 525 miles long and averaging about 125 miles in width, consists of a narrow mainland strip and numerous islands. For the most part, it is a region of rugged relief with numerous glaciers capping many of the higher mountainous areas and with long linear fiords forming the inland waterways. A maritime climate prevails with mild winters and cool summers. The southeastern part of the region receives the highest precipitation in the continental United States. Ketchikan, with a population of 6,994 in 1970, is the largest city. Geology and structure of the area are complex. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks crop out and range in age from Paleozoic to Tertiary. Surficial deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age mantle many areas. All of southeastern Alaska, except probably the highest peaks, was covered by glacier ice advances of late Pleistocene age. Major deglaciation was well advanced by 10,000 years ago--a time which approximately marks the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. There followed a period of warm climate called the Hypsithermal, which in southeastern Alaska began 7,000-8,000 years ago and ended about 4,800-3,500 years ago. Glaciers in most places receded back of their present positions. The Hypsithermal was followed by an interval (termed Neoglaciation) of cooler climate and resurgence of glacier ice which continues to the present, although most glaciers are now rapidly receding. During the past 10,000 years worldwide sea level has risen about 100 feet, but during the past 4,000 years it has risen only about 10 feet or about 0.03 inch per year. With sea level used as a datum, the amount of sea-level rise must be added to the apparent uplift of land for the time under consideration to determine the actual amount of land uplift. The widespread presence of emergent marine deposits, several hundred feet above sea level, demonstrates that the land in southeastern Alaska has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known uplift is in the vicinity of Juneau where glaciomarine deposits are present 750 feet above present sea level. Part of southeastern Alaska is presently undergoing one of the most rapid rates of uplift of any place in the world. The fastest emergence is occurring in the Glacier Bay area where the land is being uplifted relative to sea level approximately 3.9 cm per year. Most or all of the uplift appears to be due to rebound as a result of deglaciation. Southeastern Alaska lies within the circum-Pacific earthquake belt, one of the world's greatest zones of seismic activity. During historic time, there have been five earthquakes in the region with magnitudes of 8 or greater, three with magnitudes of 7 to 8, eight with magnitudes of 6 to 7, more than 15 with magnitudes of 5 to 6, and about 140 recorded earthquakes with magnitudes smaller than 5 or of unassigned magnitudes. All of the earthquakes with magnitudes 8 or greater, and a large proportion of the others, appear to be related to the active Fairweather- Queen Charlotte Islands fault system or its western extension, the Chugach-St. Elias fault. Earthquake epicenters on the Denali fault system, the other major fault system in southeastern Alaska, are few in comparison. However, because high microearthquake activity has been recorded recently on this system and earthquakes of moderate size have occurred on some of its segments, the Denali fault system probably should not be dismissed as a relict fault system of no current tectonic importance. There are numerous other known faults, as well as lineaments that may be faults of varying degrees of tectonic activity in southeastern Alaska, adjacent Canada, and eastern Alaska. One of these elements is the Totschunda fault system, which connects with the Denali fault system in eastern Alaska; it has been very active during Holocene time but few historical earthquake epicenters appear to be related to it. Both historical seismicity and geologic conditions, such as frequency and recency of faulting, must be considered together to permit an assessment of the future earthquake probability of an area. Data are too few for both factors for an accurate evaluation to be made of earthquake probability in southeastern Alaska. However, information compiled in the form of strain-release and seismic-zone maps permit some generalizations. Thus, it is tentatively concluded that most, if not all, of southeastern Alaska should be placed in seismic zone 3, a zone in which earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6 will occur from time to time and where there may be major damage to manmade structures. Inferred effects from future earthquakes in southeastern Alaska include: (1) surface displacement along faults and other tectonic land-level changes, (2) ground shaking, (3) compaction, (4) liquefaction in cohesionless materials, (5) reaction of sensitive and quick clays, (6) water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing, (7) earthquake-induced sub aerial slides and slumps, (8) earthquake induced subaqueous slides, (9) effects on glaciers and related features, (10) effects on ground water and stream flow, and (11) tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves. Because of the reconnaissance nature of our studies in the coastal communities and the sparsity of laboratory data on physical properties of geologic units in each area studied, the inferred effects must be largely empirical and generalized. Therefore, the inferences are based in large part upon the effects of past major earthquakes in Alaska and elsewhere, particularly upon the well-documented effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. Buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, harbor facilities, pipelines, canals, and other manmade structures may be severely damaged or destroyed by fault displacement or related tectonic land-level changes in southeastern Alaska. Direct damage from fault rupture would be restricted virtually to structures built directly athwart the fault. In California and Nevada, fault rupture almost always accompanies shocks of magnitude 6.5 or greater. The Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, and the Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960, dramatically illustrated the severe adverse effects that can result from uplift or subsidence over a wide area. The variable most responsible for the degree of shaking at any epicentral distance is the type of ground. Generally, shaking is considerably greater in poorly consolidated deposits than in hard bedrock, particularly if the deposits are water saturated. Severe shaking of alluvial deposits and manmade fill, with resultant heavy damage, is well documented from the records of many past earthquakes. Damage commonly has been heavy as a result of ground settlement caused by compaction of loose sediments by shaking during an earthquake. This has been especially true where compaction was accompanied by tectonic downdrop of land, such as occurred during the Chilean earthquake of 1960 and the Alaska earthquake of 1964. Loosely emplaced manmade fill, deltaic deposits, beach deposits, and alluvial deposits may be susceptible to compaction in southeastern Alaska during a severe earthquake. Liquefaction of sand and silt is a fairly common effect of large earthquakes. It was well illustrated at Niigata, Japan, during the earthquake of June 16, 1964, and resulted in extensive damage. When part of a sloping soil mass liquefies, the entire mass can undergo catastrophic failure and can flow as a high-density liquid. In southeastern Alaska, deltaic deposits probably would be most susceptible to liquefaction. Sensitive and quick clays, which lose a considerable part of their strength when shaken, commonly fail during an earthquake and become rapid earthflows. Extensive studies were made of the sensitivity of the Bootlegger Cove Clay at Anchorage because of the marked loss of shear strength and dramatic failures of the deposits during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. If similar sensitive clays are present in some places in southeastern Alaska, they most likely are in some of the emergent fine-grained marine deposits; supporting data to confirm their presence, however, are largely lacking. Records of some 50 major earthquakes show that in at least half of the instances water and sediment have been ejected from surficial deposits Water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing commonly cause extensive damage to the works of man. Ejecta may fill basements and other low-lying parts of buildings. Agricultural land can be covered with a blanket of infertile soils, and small ponds can be filled or made shallow. In southeastern Alaska these phenomena are most likely to occur on valley floors, deltas, tidal flats, alluvial fans, swamps, and lakeshores. Earthquake-induced sliding on land generally is confined to steep slopes but may take place in fine-grained deposits on moderately to nearly flat surfaces if the deposits are subject to liquefaction. A large rockslide triggered by the Lituya Bay, Alaska, earthquake of July 10, 1958, generated a wave that surged up the opposite wall of the inlet to a record height of 1,740 feet. During the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of August 17, 1959, a spectacular rockslide plunged into the Madison River canyon, buried 28 people, dammed the river, and created a large lake. Earthquake-records are replete with accounts of sliding of surficial deposits during moderate to large earthquakes. Most or all of the general factors that favor subaerial landsliding are present in southeastern Alaska. Earthquake-induced subaqueous slides can produce adverse effects both nearshore and some distance offshore. Nearshore sliding may progress shoreward and destroy harbor facilities and other structures, commonly with substantial loss of life. Disastrous large submarine slides occurred along the fronts of deltas in Seward and Valdez during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. In similar fashion, the largest submarine slides in southeastern Alaska likely will be triggered along the larger delta fronts. Sliding farther offshore can constitute a threat to navigation because of changes in water depths. Also underwater sliding can break communication cables. Glaciers were not greatly affected by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 despite the fact that about 20 percent of the area that underwent strong shaking is covered by ice. In contrast, the cataclysmic avalanche of ice and rock that fell from a high glacier-covered peak in Peru during the earthquake of May 31, 1970, produced devastating effects downvalley on man and his works in the form of mudflows. Most towns in southeastern Alaska are sufficiently distant from glaciers so as not be to directly affected. Both the Alaska earthquake of 1964 and the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of 1959 significantly affected ground- and surface-water regimens. Water levels in some wells declined whereas in others flow increased. Some springs discharged at a rate three times as much as normal; flow of others decreased or stopped. Discharge of many streams increased markedly. Most or all of the effects described above could occur in parts of southeastern Alaska during future large earthquakes. Tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves associated with large earthquakes commonly cause vast property damage and heavy loss of life. Tsunami effects can be devastating to coastal areas as far as many thousands of miles from their generation source. Seiche effects generally are confined to inland bodies of water or to relatively enclosed coastal bodies of water. Abnormal waves generated by submarine sliding or by subaerial sliding into water generally produce only local effects but may be highly devastating. Tsunami waves resulting from the Chilean earthquake of 1960 inflicted extensive damage and loss of life on coastal communities throughout a large part of southern Chile, and significant runups and damage were recorded in many places throughout the Pacific Ocean area. The tsunami waves generated by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 struck with devastating force along a broad stretch of the Alaska coast and produced heavy property damage and loss of life as far away as Crescent City, Calif. Seiche waves generated by that earthquake reached runup heights of 20-30 feet on some lakes in Alaska, and water-level fluctuations were recorded on streams, reservoirs, lakes, and swimming pools in States bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Waves generated by submarine sliding struck violently at a number of places during or immediately after the quake and were the major cause of loss of life and damage to property. Slide-generated waves probably would have a higher destructive potential in southeastern Alaska than either tsunami waves or seiche waves because of their possibly higher local runups and because they can hit the shores almost without warning during or immediately after an earthquake. Nonearthquake-related geologic hazards, although generally far less dramatic than those related to earthquakes, tend to occur so much more frequently or persistently that their aggregate effects can be significant. Three kinds of geologic hazards of this type are discussed: (1) nonearthquake-induced landsliding and subaqueous sliding, (2) flooding, and (3) land uplift. The potential for nonearthquake-triggered landsliding in southeastern Alaska ranges widely from place to place. Past sliding generally furnishes the clue in the prediction of where and in what materials future sliding will occur. Fast-moving rockslides, debris slides, and mudflows can be expected to occur from time to time on steep slopes and be highly destructive to highways, power plants, pipelines, buildings, and other facilities located on a slope or at its base. Present slow downslope movement of talus can be expected to continue at the same general rate unless conditions are changed by man or there are climatic changes. Snow and debris avalanches can be especially hazardous during winter months. Long-inactive landslides may be triggered into renewed activity or new slides may be created by man-induced modifications. Accelerated slope erosion and debris flows may follow large-scale clearing and cutting of timber. Subaqueous sliding can be expected to occur periodically along fronts of deltas and on other oversteepened underwater slopes. Floods have been common in parts of southeastern Alaska because of heavy precipitation and rapid runoff from steep slopes with resulting heavy damage to roads and other facilities. Continued damage can be expected in the future unless more remedial measures are taken. Current uplift of land in southeastern Alaska, although probably not affecting man significantly in a short period of time, may have some adverse long-term effects. These long-term effects should be borne in mind when facilities such as docks and boat harbors are constructed on or near the shore, where there is a critical relation between height of land and water.

Alaska↗