Contour basemap for the Omaha metropolitan area that includes Douglas & Sarpy Counties & surrounding portions of Dodge & Washington counties. Data was generated from the 2016 QL2 LiDAR project.Deliverables from the project can be downloaded from the project site:https://sarpy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fd49c0b1d6414828b4034187ff63c6fe

File geodatabase that includes 1' contours derived from the 2016 eastern Nebraska LiDAR project. The project included Douglas, Sarpy, & Lancaster counties.

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

These data are part of a larger USGS project to develop an updated geospatial database of mines, mineral deposits and mineral regions in the United States. Mine and prospect-related symbols, such as those used to represent prospect pits, mines, adits, dumps, tailings, etc., hereafter referred to as “mine” symbols or features, are currently being digitized on a state-by-state basis from the 7.5-minute (1:24,000-scale) and the 15-minute (1:48,000 and 1:62,500-scale) archive of the USGS Historical Topographic Maps Collection, or acquired from available databases (California and Nevada, 1:24,000-scale only). Compilation of these features is the first phase in capturing accurate locations and general information about features related to mineral resource exploration and extraction across the U.S. To date, the compilation of 500,000-plus point and polygon mine symbols from approximately 67,000 maps of 22 western states has been completed: Arizona (AZ), Arkansas (AR), California (CA), Colorado (CO), Idaho (ID), Iowa (IA), Kansas (KS), Louisiana (LA), Minnesota (MN), Missouri (MO), Montana (MT), North Dakota (ND), Nebraska (NE), New Mexico (NM), Nevada (NV), Oklahoma (OK), Oregon (OR), South Dakota (SD), Texas (TX), Utah (UT), Washington (WA), and Wyoming (WY). The process renders not only a more complete picture of exploration and mining in the western U.S., but an approximate time line of when these activities occurred. The data may be used for land use planning, assessing abandoned mine lands and mine-related environmental impacts, assessing the value of mineral resources from Federal, State and private lands, and mapping mineralized areas and systems for input into the land management process. The data are presented as three groups of layers based on the scale of the source maps. No reconciliation between the data groups was done.

description: The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (CNPPD), conducted a study that used bathymetric and topographic surveying in conjunction with Geographical Information Systems techniques to determine the 2003 physical shape and storage capacity, as well as the change in storage capacity of Lake McConaughy that occurred over 62 years. By combining the bathymetric and topographic survey data, the 2003 surface area of Lake McConaughy was determined to be 30,413.0 acres, with a volume of 1,756,300 acre-feet at the lake conservation-pool elevation of 3,266.4 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (3,265.0 feet above CNPPD datum). To determine the changes in storage of Lake McConaughy, the 2003 survey Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was compared to a preconstruction DEM compiled from historical contour maps. This comparison showed an increase in elevation at the dam site due to the installation of Kingsley Dam. Immediately to the west of the Kingsley Dam is an area of decline where a borrow pit for Kingsley Dam was excavated. The comparison of the preconstruction survey to the 2003 survey also was used to estimate the gross storage capacity reduction that occurred between 1941 and 2002. The results of this comparison indicate a gross storage capacity reduction of approximately 42,372 acre-feet, at the lake conservation-pool elevation of 3,266.4 feet in NAVD 88 (3,265.0 feet in CNPPD datum). By comparing preconstruction and 2003 survey data and subtracting the Kingsley Dam and borrow pit, the total estimated net volume of sediment deposited from 1941 to 2003 was 53,347,124 cubic yards, at an annual average rate of 860,437 cubic yards per year. The approximate decrease in the net storage capacity from 1941 to 2003 was 33,066 acre-feet, at an annual average decrease of approximately 533 acre-feet per year, which resulted in a 1.8 percent decrease in storage capacity of Lake McConaughy. The lake accumulated most of the sediment in the original river channel and in the west end of the delta area on the upstream end of the lake.; abstract: The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (CNPPD), conducted a study that used bathymetric and topographic surveying in conjunction with Geographical Information Systems techniques to determine the 2003 physical shape and storage capacity, as well as the change in storage capacity of Lake McConaughy that occurred over 62 years. By combining the bathymetric and topographic survey data, the 2003 surface area of Lake McConaughy was determined to be 30,413.0 acres, with a volume of 1,756,300 acre-feet at the lake conservation-pool elevation of 3,266.4 feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (3,265.0 feet above CNPPD datum). To determine the changes in storage of Lake McConaughy, the 2003 survey Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was compared to a preconstruction DEM compiled from historical contour maps. This comparison showed an increase in elevation at the dam site due to the installation of Kingsley Dam. Immediately to the west of the Kingsley Dam is an area of decline where a borrow pit for Kingsley Dam was excavated. The comparison of the preconstruction survey to the 2003 survey also was used to estimate the gross storage capacity reduction that occurred between 1941 and 2002. The results of this comparison indicate a gross storage capacity reduction of approximately 42,372 acre-feet, at the lake conservation-pool elevation of 3,266.4 feet in NAVD 88 (3,265.0 feet in CNPPD datum). By comparing preconstruction and 2003 survey data and subtracting the Kingsley Dam and borrow pit, the total estimated net volume of sediment deposited from 1941 to 2003 was 53,347,124 cubic yards, at an annual average rate of 860,437 cubic yards per year. The approximate decrease in the net storage capacity from 1941 to 2003 was 33,066 acre-feet, at an annual average decrease of approximately 533 acre-feet per year, which resulted in a 1.8 percent decrease in storage capacity of Lake McConaughy. The lake accumulated most of the sediment in the original river channel and in the west end of the delta area on the upstream end of the lake.

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

In 2006, a cooperative study was established to compile reliable data describing groundwater and surface-water interactions in the Elkhorn and Loup River Basins. The purpose of the study was to address state legislation that requires a sustainable balance between long term water supplies and uses of surface water and groundwater. A groundwater-flow model [hereinafter referred to as the Elkhorn-Loup Model (ELM)] was constructed as part of the first two phases of that study as a tool for understanding the effect of groundwater pumpage on stream base flow and the effects of management strategies on hydrologically connected groundwater and surface-water supplies. The third phase of the study was implemented to gain additional geologic knowledge and update the ELM with enhanced water-budget information and refined discretization of the model grid and stress periods. As part of that effort, the ELM is being reconstructed to include two vertical model layers, whereas phase-one and phase-two simulations (Peterson and others, 2008; Stanton and others, 2010) represented the aquifer system using one vertical model layer. The goal for defining the base of the upper model layer was to divide the model vertically so that the upper layer had different water transmitting and storage characteristics than the lower layer. Texture descriptions were used in most cases to identify the depth in a test-hole, water well, or surface-geophysical log at which dividing the aquifer produced contrasting texture characteristics for the upper and lower model layers. The study area covers approximately 30,000 square miles, and extends from the Niobrara River in the north to the Platte River in the south. The western boundary roughly coincides with the western boundary of the Upper Loup NRD, and the eastern boundary roughly coincides with the approximate location of the westernmost extent of glacial till in eastern Nebraska (University of Nebraska, 2005). This data release consists of a line shapefile of contours attributed with values representing the elevation of the base of the upper layer of the two-layer phase-three ELM above the vertical datum (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929).

This digital spatial data set consists of the aquifer base elevation contours (50-foot contour interval) for part of the High Plains aquifer in the central United States. This subset of the High Plains aquifer covers the Republican River Basin in Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado upstream from the streamflow station on the Republican River near Hardy, Nebraska, near the Kansas/Nebraska border. In Nebraska, the digitized contours extend to the South Platte, Platte, and Little Blue Rivers. In Colorado and Kansas, the digital contours extend to the edge of the High Plains aquifer. These boundaries were chosen to simplify boundary conditions for a computer simulation model being used for a hydrologic study of the Republican River Basin.

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Contour basemap for the Omaha metropolitan area that includes Douglas & Sarpy Counties & surrounding portions of Dodge & Washington counties. Data was generated from the 2016 QL2 LiDAR project.Deliverables from the project can be downloaded from the project site:https://sarpy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fd49c0b1d6414828b4034187ff63c6fe

The following are a list of assumptions made during the modeling process. This is not an inclusive list. Levees and levee closure structures were included in the analysis only if they were listed in the US Army Corps of Engineers' National Levee Database (NLD). No levee breach analyses were completed: levees were assumed to perform until overtopped. Bridges and culverts were modeled unobstructed: ice Jams and debris collection were not considered. Inundation boundaries were only developed for the listed stream: tributaries were not taken into account. Lakes, ponds, and lagoons were assumed dry until overtopped.. The critical facilities layer is draft and subject to change at any time. The models used to develop the inundation boundaries and depth grids were developed using the best available topographic, land use, and flood insurance study data, as well as best engineering practices at the time of their development. Any change to the topography or land use will impact the accuracy of the inundation boundaries. These are not regulatory models and were developed solely for informational purposes. Any use of these models or modifications beyond that are not recommended, but may be conducted based on the discretion of a licensed professional engineer. The Department of Natural Resources makes no claims, representations, and warranties, express or implied, concerning the validity, the reliability, or the accuracy of the data and data products furnished by the Department. The Department of Natural Resources assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of their cause, or for any decision made, action taken, or action not taken in reliance upon the information contained in these models. All models and reports are available from NeDNR, upon request.

This digital data set consists of contours for 1980 water-level elevations for the High Plains aquifer in the central United States. The High Plains aquifer extends from south of 32 degrees to almost 44 degrees north latitude and from 96 degrees 30 minutes to 106 degrees west longitude. The outcrop area covers 174,000 square miles and is present in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. This digital data set was created by digitizing the 1980 water-level elevation contours from a 1:1,000,000-scale base map created by the U.S. Geological Survey High Plains Regional Aquifer Systems-Analysis (RASA) project (Gutentag, E.D., Heimes, F.J., Krothe, N.C., Luckey, R.R., and Weeks, J.B., 1984, Geohydrology of the High Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1400-B, 63 p.) The data are not intended for use at scales larger than 1:1,000,000.

This dataset combines the work of several different projects to create a seamless data set for the contiguous United States. Data from four regional Gap Analysis Projects and the LANDFIRE project were combined to make this dataset. In the northwestern United States (Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Wyoming) data in this map came from the Northwest Gap Analysis Project. In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) data used in this map came from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. The data for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia came from the Southeast Gap Analysis Project and the California data was generated by the updated California Gap land cover project. The Hawaii Gap Analysis project provided the data for Hawaii. In areas of the county (central U.S., Northeast, Alaska) that have not yet been covered by a regional Gap Analysis Project, data from the Landfire project was used. Similarities in the methods used by these projects made possible the combining of the data they derived into one seamless coverage. They all used multi-season satellite imagery (Landsat ETM+) from 1999-2001 in conjunction with digital elevation model (DEM) derived datasets (e.g. elevation, landform) to model natural and semi-natural vegetation. Vegetation classes were drawn from NatureServe's Ecological System Classification (Comer et al. 2003) or classes developed by the Hawaii Gap project. Additionally, all of the projects included land use classes that were employed to describe areas where natural vegetation has been altered. In many areas of the country these classes were derived from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). For the majority of classes and, in most areas of the country, a decision tree classifier was used to discriminate ecological system types. In some areas of the country, more manual techniques were used to discriminate small patch systems and systems not distinguishable through topography. The data contains multiple levels of thematic detail. At the most detailed level natural vegetation is represented by NatureServe's Ecological System classification (or in Hawaii the Hawaii GAP classification). These most detailed classifications have been crosswalked to the five highest levels of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC), Class, Subclass, Formation, Division and Macrogroup. This crosswalk allows users to display and analyze the data at different levels of thematic resolution. Developed areas, or areas dominated by introduced species, timber harvest, or water are represented by other classes, collectively refered to as land use classes; these land use classes occur at each of the thematic levels. Raster data in both ArcGIS Grid and ERDAS Imagine format is available for download at http://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspx Six layer files are included in the download packages to assist the user in displaying the data at each of the Thematic levels in ArcGIS. In adition to the raster datasets the data is available in Web Mapping Services (WMS) format for each of the six NVC classification levels (Class, Subclass, Formation, Division, Macrogroup, Ecological System) at the following links. http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Class_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Subclass_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Formation_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Division_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_NVC_Macrogroup_Landuse/MapServer http://gis1.usgs.gov/arcgis/rest/services/gap/GAP_Land_Cover_Ecological_Systems_Landuse/MapServer

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information