The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) 

Network of the U.S. Geological Survey

Past and Future Implementation of Storm-Response 

Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Circular 1431

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Background images: Satellite images of Hurricane Sandy on October 28, 2012. Images courtesy of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. 

Inset images from top to bottom: 

Top, sand deposited from washover and inundation at Long Beach, New York, during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Photograph by the 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Center, Hurricane Joaquin washed out a road at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in 2015. Photograph courtesy of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

Bottom, house damaged by Hurricane Sandy in Mantoloking, New Jersey, in 2012. Photograph by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics 

(SWaTH) Network of the U.S. Geological 

Survey

Past and Future Implementation of 

Storm-Response Monitoring, Data 

Collection, and Data Delivery

By Richard J. Verdi, R. Russell Lotspeich, Jeanne C. Robbins, 

Ronald J. Busciolano, John R. Mullaney, Andrew J. Massey, William S. Banks, 

Mark A. Roland, Harry L. Jenter, Marie C. Peppler, Tom P. Suro, Chris E. Schubert, 

and Mark R. Nardi

Circular 1431

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Verdi, R.J., Lotspeich, R.R., Robbins, J.C., Busciolano, R.J., Mullaney, J.R., Massey, A.J., Banks, W.S., Roland, M.A., 

Jenter, H.L., Peppler, M.C., Suro, T.P., Schubert, C.E., and Nardi, M.R., 2017, The surge, wave, and tide hydrodynamics 

(SWaTH) network of the U.S. Geological Survey—Past and future implementation of storm-response monitoring, data 

collection, and data delivery: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1431, 35 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1431.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Verdi, Richard Jay, author. | Geological Survey (U.S.), issuing body.

Title: The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) Network of the U.S.

 Geological Survey : past and future implementation of storm-response

 monitoring, data collection, and data delivery / by Richard J. Verdi [and

 twelve others].

Other titles: U.S. Geological Survey circular ; 1431.

Description: Reston, Virginia : U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.

 Geological Survey, 2017. | Series: Circular, ISSN 1067-084X ; 1431 |

 Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017026866 | ISBN 9781411341494

Subjects: LCSH: Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) Network of the

 U.S. Geological Survey--Data processing. | Storm surges--Atlantic Coast

 (U.S.) | Floods--Atlantic Coast (U.S.) | Coastal settlements--East (U.S.)

Classification: LCC GC226.U54 .V47 2017 | DDC 551.46/30284--dc23 | SUDOC I

 19.4/2:1431

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017026866

ISSN 1067-084X (print) 

ISSN 2330-5703 (online) 

ISBN 978-1-4113-4149-4
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Mechanics of Inundation..............................................................................................................................6

USGS Storm Response Since 1993 .............................................................................................................7

Regional Stories.............................................................................................................................................9

North Carolina .....................................................................................................................................10

Mid-Atlantic States.............................................................................................................................14

Impacts of Hurricane Sandy ....................................................................................................14

Tidal Monitoring by the USGS..................................................................................................15

New Jersey..........................................................................................................................................16

New York and Connecticut................................................................................................................18

Monitoring the Storm ................................................................................................................18

Peak Storm Surge.............................................................................................................20

Peak Storm Tide ................................................................................................................20

Timing of Maximum Surge........................................................................................................22

Comparison With Previous Storms and Historical Peaks...................................................23

Improved Monitoring Through the SWaTH Network...........................................................23

Massachusetts....................................................................................................................................25

Impacts of Recent Storms on Plum Island ............................................................................25

Storm Surge and Real-Time Tide Monitoring........................................................................28

Forecasting, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Future.........................................................................29

Working With Partners ......................................................................................................................29

SWaTH and Real-Time Networks.....................................................................................................31

Summary........................................................................................................................................................31

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................32

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................32

Figures

1. Map and satellite image showing Hurricane Sandy made landfall in the 

United States in New Jersey on the northeastern coast of the Atlantic Ocean 

on October 29, 2012 ......................................................................................................................2

2. Map of the Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) network...............................4

3. Cross section showing coastal storms change the ways in which waves and 

surge move when they reach the near-shore environment..................................................6

4. Maps showing the areas of the five regional stories in this report .....................................9

5. Maps showing Barrier islands are one of the main characteristics of the 

coast of North Carolina..............................................................................................................10
iv

6. Map showing hurricanes return to the eastern and southern coasts of the 

United States as much as every 5 to 50 years .......................................................................11

7. Satellite images show the effects of Hurricane Irene on North Carolina 

State Highway 12 south of Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, N.C., 

in March 2011 and August 2011................................................................................................12

8. Graph showing in general terms, as barometric pressure drops, the elevation 

of the storm tide rises, as happened during Hurricane Irene between 

August 24 and 30, 2011, at a high-water mark recorded at the Bridgeport Hotel 

and Marina in Craven County, North Carolina.......................................................................13

9. Map showing the rivers and streams of the Mid-Atlantic region drain into three 

main waterbodies that are impacted by tropical systems and nor’easters .....................15

10. Map showing the surge at Cape May on October 29, 2012, during Hurricane Sandy 

reached as much as 6 feet, whereas the tide gages at Raritan Bay, Sea Bright, and 

Point Pleasant recorded surges between 8 and more than 12 feet...................................16

11. Graphs showing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts 

tidal elevations and the U.S. Geological Survey measures observed tidal 

elevations and storm surge for storms such as Hurricane Sandy .....................................17

12. Photographs showing coastal communities across coastal New York were 

damaged by Hurricane Sandy ..................................................................................................18

13. Maps showing permanent stations and storm-tide sensor locations, storm-surge 

magnitudes, and peak storm-tide elevations for Hurricane Sandy....................................19

14. Graphs showing a comparison of storm tide and storm surge resulting from 

Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 with astronomical predicted tides (without 

the effects of a storm) shows the magnitude of the storm surge and tide from 

the hurricane ...............................................................................................................................22

15. Map showing the barrier Plum Island, which lies in the tidal estuary of 

Plum Island Sound in Massachusetts, is reworked and reshaped storm 

by storm........................................................................................................................................26

16. Photograph showing in the Roaring Twenties, development on Plum Island 

boomed and as many as 12,000 houses were built on about 1,400 acres.........................27

17. Photographs showing many houses on Plum Island, Massachusetts, were 

undermined by the storms of winter 2013...............................................................................27

18. Graph and photograph showing gages such as the U.S. Geological Survey 

gage at the U.S. Route 1A bridge on the Merrimack River at Newburyport, 

Massachusetts (station 01100870), collect information on water levels, which 

can be used to evaluate the storm surge at that location during large storms ...............28

19. Map showing Fire Island National Seashore and Wilderness on Fire Island, 

New York, has long been affected by storms and hurricanes ............................................30

Tables

1. Storm-surge magnitude, peak storm tide, and magnitude and timing of the peak 

storm surge associated with the peak storm tide produced by Hurricane Sandy 

at 32 permanent stations in southeastern New York and southern Connecticut ............21

2. Peak storm-tide elevations produced by Hurricane Sandy at 29 permanent 

stations in southeastern New York and southern Connecticut, with a 

comparison to other storms of record in the region.............................................................24
The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics 

(SWaTH) Network of the U.S. Geological 

Survey

Past and Future Implementation 

of Storm-Response Monitoring, 

Data Collection, and Data Delivery

By Richard J. Verdi, R. Russell Lotspeich, Jeanne C. Robbins, 

Ronald J. Busciolano, John R. Mullaney, Andrew J. Massey, William S. Banks, 

Mark A. Roland, Harry L. Jenter, Marie C. Peppler, Tom P. Suro, Chris E. Schubert, 

and Mark R. Nardi

Abstract

After Hurricane Sandy made landfall along the northeastern Atlantic coast of the United 

States on October 29, 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) carried out scientific investigations to assist with protecting coastal communities and resources from future flooding. The 

work included development and implementation of the Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) network consisting of more than 900 monitoring stations. The SWaTH network 

was designed to greatly improve the collection and timely dissemination of information 

related to storm surge and coastal flooding. The network provides a significant enhancement to 

USGS data-collection capabilities in the region impacted by Hurricane Sandy and represents 

a new strategy for observing and monitoring coastal storms, which should result in improved 

understanding, prediction, and warning of storm-surge impacts and lead to more resilient 

coastal communities.

As innovative as it is, SWaTH evolved from previous USGS efforts to collect stormsurge data needed by others to improve storm-surge modeling, warning, and mitigation. This 

report discusses the development and implementation of the SWaTH network, and some of 

the regional stories associated with the landfall of Hurricane Sandy, as well as some previous 

events that informed the SWaTH development effort. Additional discussions on the mechanics 

of inundation and how the USGS is working with partners to help protect coastal communities 

from future storm impacts are also included.

U.S. Geological Survey scientist deploying an acoustic doppler current profiler to measure water 

velocity profiles in a new inlet formed during Hurricane Sandy on Fire Island, New York. Photograph 

by the U.S. Geological Survey.
2 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Introduction

Hurricane Sandy made landfall on the New Jersey coast on October 29, 2012, and highlighted the vulnerability of the northeastern Atlantic coast of the United States to extreme 

tidal surges and coastal flooding (fig. 1). Following this devastating event, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) received $43.2 million in congressional supplemental appropriations from the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to carry out scientific research needed to guide storm 

response, recovery, and rebuilding activities and to develop effective strategies for protecting 

coastal communities and resources from future storm-surge flooding.

Storms such as Hurricane Sandy have shown that energy from storm surge and waves is 

a primary driver of coastal-community destruction and dramatic changes to the coastal environment. With climate-change scientists predicting more frequent and intense storms and a 

greater risk of coastal flooding because of the effects of predicted sea-level rise (Horton and 

others, 2015), there is a need for increased scientific understanding of coastal processes. Reliably obtained and applied science can strengthen efforts to build resilient coastal communities 

before storms strike and guide response and recovery strategies after landfall.

Response activities by the USGS relating to Hurricane Sandy are guided by the USGS 

science plan for support of restoration and recovery (Buxton and others, 2013), which uses an 

integrated approach to understand the impact of the storm and to inform management decisions 

that support the recovery and restoration of coastal communities and natural resources and that 

enhance resilience in preparation for future floods. This comprehensive science 

plan facilitates the coordination of USGS activities with those of other agencies and stakeholders. New and ongoing research, along with supporting data 

collection and analysis, will focus on developing and refining understanding of past and potential future coastal-storm impacts in five thematic 

study areas:

• coastal topography and bathymetry data, to support hurricane 

impact assessment and response;

• impacts to coastal beaches and barrier islands;

• impacts of storm surge, including disturbed estuarine and bay 

hydrology;

• impacts on environmental quality, including exposure to chemical and microbial contaminants; and

• impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife, 

particularly for U.S. Department of Interior lands and trust 

resources.

Figure 1. Hurricane 

Sandy made landfall in 

the United States in New 

Jersey on the northeastern 

coast of the Atlantic 

Ocean on October 29, 2012. 

Satellite imagery from 

the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration 

Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite 

13 shows the size of the 

hurricane on October 28, 

2012, at 1:45 p.m. eastern 

daylight time.

NEW JERSEY

GULF OF MEXICO

ATLANTIC

OCEAN
Introduction 3

The information presented in this report focuses on the components of the third theme—the 

Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) network and storm-response monitoring, data 

collection, and data delivery.

Following Hurricane Sandy, the USGS began construction of an overland SWaTH network 

along the northeastern Atlantic coast from North Carolina to Maine (fig. 2). This network, 

developed collaboratively with numerous Federal and State partner agencies, features the 

integration of long-term, permanent monitoring stations with real-time rapid-deployment gages 

and mobile storm-tide and wave sensors. Elevations for most SWaTH rapid-deployment gages 

and storm-tide and wave sensors have been pre-surveyed to the North American Vertical Datum 

of 1988 (NAVD 88) and equipped with preinstalled receiving brackets for quick deployment 

in advance of coastal storms and the timely recovery of instrumentation and dissemination of 

data in the hours and days immediately after a storm. Locations in the SWaTH network were 

selected according to the following criteria: a distributed array of stations representing the 

range of landscape types and infrastructure subject to surge and wave forces; subnetwork transects extending from the Atlantic shore coastline hundreds (and in a few cases, thousands) of 

feet through the inland resource of concern (for example, a wetland or coastal community); and 

storm-hardening of existing tide and river monitoring stations where new data can be integrated 

with long-term records.

Understanding the evolution and dissipation of overland storm tides and waves as they 

move across natural and manmade landscapes is critical to increasing coastal resilience and 

establishing early warning systems for coastal-storm hazards. The USGS constructed and 

implemented the SWaTH network (fig. 2) to provide timely storm-tide and wave data to 

enhance public awareness, help forecasters predict coastal-flooding impacts, and inform emergency responders, and to also provide data needed to improve, calibrate, and verify storm-surge 

models. To improve storm-tide data collection efforts and data delivery, the USGS provided 

the following:

• Enhanced storm-tide monitoring capabilities.—By implementing the SWaTH network, 

the USGS is able to improve its response time when monitoring coastal-storm tide and 

riverine flooding related to hurricanes and nor’easters. Network establishment included 

surveying reference points to the NAVD 88; flood-hardening of existing real-time 

coastal-monitoring stations and tidally affected streamgages to withstand future storms; 

increasing data collection and real-time capabilities by procuring new rapid-deployment 

gages, Global Navigation Satellite System surveying equipment, and next-generation 

storm-tide and wave sensors; installing new and permanent real-time coastal-monitoring; and developing a network of preselected and presurveyed sites for deployment of 

temporary sensors before future coastal storms. The SWaTH network includes more 

than 900 stations.

• Enhanced data recovery and display capabilities 

through development of a short-term network (STN) 

mapper and database online application.—The STN 

(http://wimcloud.usgs.gov/STN/) is a web-based set 

of tools that includes historical and newly established 

monitoring sites in an interactive database and map 

interface that aids in network creation and development, storm-response data management, capture and 

analysis of storm-tide data, and data and product 

delivery to the scientific community and the public. 

The STN will provide a unified and consistent source 

of current and archived storm-tide, wave, and 

high-water-mark (HWM) data.

U.S. Geological Survey scientist surveying a highwater mark on Liberty Island, New York. Photograph by Michael Noll, U.S. Geological Survey.

Understanding the evolution and dissipation of overland 

storm tides and waves 

as they move across 

natural and manmade 

landscapes is critical 

to increasing coastal 

resilience and establishing early warning 

systems for coastalstorm hazards.
4 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Dover

Raleigh Norfolk

Trenton

Richmond

New York City

Annapolis

Washington, DC

Harrisburg

Philadelphia Baltimore

VIRGINIA

PENNSYLVANIA

NORTH CAROLINA

WEST VIRGINIA

OHIO

MARYLAND

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE

76

95

78

85

95

95

40

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales, variously dated

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection, Standard parallels 29°30’N. and 45°30’N., Central meridian 96°00’W.

North American Datum of 1983

75°W

80°W

35°N

80°W

40°N

35°N

0 100 

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

80

81

80

81

476

195

70

83

81

79

68

79

70

77

64

64

77

81

64

84

Figure 2. The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) network.
Introduction 5

Albany

Boston

Concord

Augusta

Providence

Area of inset map

MAINE

NEW YORK

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONNECTICUT

VERMONT

RHODE 

ISLAND

The SWaTH network is a network of water-level networks and is composed 

of transect and distributed types. Each network type performs a different 

role: transect networks are designed to capture information about wave 

energy dissipation across various landscape settings, and the distributed 

network measures water levels across large areas.

Transect

 • Small networks (three to five sites)

 • Designed to collect data about wave energy dissipation across 

 landscapes

 • 4-hertz recording level (four times per second)

 • Pre-established sites that are occupied on a temporary basis

Distributed

 • Areally distributed network

 • Designed to collect data about flooding across large areas

 • Recording at intervals ranging from 2 seconds to 15 minutes

 • Includes pre-established temporary sites, long-term tide and tidally 

 affected streamgages, and rapid deployment gages

Transect Distributed

EXPLANATION

70°W

70°W

75°W

65°W

45°N

40°N

65°W

45°N

200 MILES

N

ATLANTIC OCEAN

95

93

89

91

90

495

84

88

90 87

87

495

495

NY

NJ

Long Island

ATLANTIC OCEAN

NY

CT

N

New York City
6 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Powerful waves erode beaches 

and destroy infrastructure along the 

shore.

Mechanics of Inundation

As a large storm approaches a coast, the extreme winds and rapidly changing air pressure 

cause the ocean surface to respond in ways that can have significant implications for the safety 

and economic well-being of coastal communities. Rising waters can flood coastal communities 

and cut off evacuation routes. Powerful waves erode beaches and destroy infrastructure along 

the shore. These storm-driven motions can range over spatial scales from meters to hundreds 

of kilometers and can range over time scales from seconds to many hours; as with weather 

forecasts, we have much to gain by being able to forecast these movements in a timely and 

accurate manner.

When forecasting oceanic responses to a large storm, having terminology (fig. 3) that 

describes each type of motion is particularly helpful, as each motion must be analyzed 

differently.

• Storm surge is the slow—over the course of minutes to hours—rise and fall of the ocean 

near the shoreline in response to the change of air pressure and to the force of the wind 

pushing large quantities of water onshore or offshore during the passing of a storm.

• Tide is the slow—over the course of hours to days—rise and fall of the ocean caused by 

centrifugal and gravitational forces from the rotation of the Earth and from orbital paths 

of the Earth, Sun, and Moon.

• Storm tide is the superimposed combination of storm surge and tide, observed at the 

coastline as flooding during the passage of a storm; storm tide inundates coastal towns 

and cuts off coastal evacuation routes.

• Storm waves are the rapid—over the course of seconds—rise and fall of the ocean surface caused by wind during the passage of a storm; storm waves are the short, choppy, 

breaking, quasiperiodic motions that are superimposed on top of the storm tide; when 

storm waves break or crash against the beach and coastal structures, significant energy 

is expended commonly resulting in the destruction of beaches, roads, piers and buildings. Storm waves also force water up onto the beach. Wave setup is the mean level of 

wave-induced uprush of water above the storm tide, and wave runup is the maximum 

vertical extent of the uprush.

Extreme winds

Ocean waves

Wave setup

Surge 

Total storm surge

Wave

 runup

Datum Expected high tide

Low pressure

Current

Figure 3. Coastal storms change the ways 

in which waves and surge move when 

they reach the near-shore environment. 

Image designed by Christine Mendelsohn, 

U.S. Geological Survey.
USGS Storm Response Since 1993 7

Most operational coastal-flooding forecast models include storm-surge and storm-wave 

modeling components. The former is used to estimate the spatial and temporal distribution of 

water depths and flows, and the latter is used to estimate the spatial and temporal distribution of 

wave heights and wave energy during a storm. The SWaTH network is designed to collect data 

from all these components employing a broad, aerial coverage with intense temporal resolution 

of as little as 0.25 second. Networked together, the data represent thousands of individual snapshots of the entire near-shore and overland water surface (tide, surge, and waves) throughout 

the approach, landfall, and retreat of storm-driven coastal flooding.

USGS Storm Response Since 1993

Storm-tide flooding historically has been a post-storm activity, involving the collection 

and preservation of HWMs after the passage of a storm. Once the HWMs were identified and 

preserved, subsequent surveys followed to determine their elevation. This process, however, 

can be long and arduous, with the need to rapidly flag HWMs in a timely manner and then to 

survey in the HWMs before they are affected by subsequent events or disturbed by public or 

private storm-cleanup activities. Historically, the USGS has been involved in the collection 

and preservation of HWMs, often working with Federal partners, State and local governments, 

and academic institutions to adequately document storm impacts for use in scientific endeavors 

including the calibration and validation of models used to forecast storm surge (Buxton and 

others, 2013).

SWaTH is a product of the continued, though somewhat episodic evolution of USGS 

coastal flooding data-collection capabilities and strategies. For decades, the USGS has provided critical information on near-shore storm hydrodynamics data for emergency response 

and resource allocation decision making before, during, and immediately after landfall of hurricanes and nor’easters. Prior to SWaTH, much of this information was provided by way of a 

few real-time tide gages (Hoppe, 2007) that supplemented and extended the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal gage network but focused on near-shore and 

shallow coastal waters. The USGS gages, however, were rarely storm-hardened and were often 

overtopped or damaged during storms, causing loss of continuous data.

To supplement the tidal gage network, HWMs were frequently obtained at the gages and 

along coastlines to provide documentation after a storm for land-use planning, improvement of 

building codes, and evaluation of storm-surge forecast models. However, HWMs do not provide adequate information for modeling because they inform the modeler only about the maximum storm tide, but do not provide information about when or why that maximum occurred.

When the category 5 Hurricane Katrina made landfall (August 29, 2005) near Pearlington, Mississippi (not shown), and Slidell, Louisiana (not shown), many of the tidal and 

coastal streamgages in the area were damaged by storm flooding. Less than a month later, 

on September 26, Hurricane Rita, also a category 5 hurricane, made landfall just west of the 

Texas-Louisiana border and caused substantial flooding in many of the same areas as Hurricane 

Katrina. Because there had not been enough time to repair all the gages in the area, the USGS 

developed an innovative way to use equipment on hand: small pressure transducers that were 

typically used for groundwater monitoring and experimentally in crest-stage gages in support of 

“continuous-slope area computations” (Smith and others, 2010) were hung in small protective 

housings and deployed close to the ground. Because the sensors were deployed as the storm 

was forming and moving toward land, there were no pre-established or presurveyed sensor 

sites. This situation delayed the deployment of sensors as hydrographers sought to identify 

appropriate locations. The lack of pre-established or presurveyed sensor sites also hampered the 

swift delivery of the resulting data because the elevations of the sites had to be surveyed to the 

NAVD 88 datum after the storm. The Hurricane Rita data were collected, processed, and then 

released in McGee and others (2006).

The USGS provides critical information 

on near-shore storm 

hydrodynamics data 

for emergency response and resource 

allocation decision 

making before, during, 

and immediately after 

landfall of hurricanes 

and nor’easters.

U.S. Geological Survey scientist recovering a storm-surge 

sensor after Hurricane Sandy 

in Annapolis, Maryland. Photograph by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.
8 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

I

n the decade since 

Hurricane Rita, 

USGS storm-response 

activities focused on 

providing storm-tide 

data to researchers 

working to improve 

storm-tide models.

U.S. Geological Survey 

scientists installing a rapid 

deployment gauge to measure 

water-surface elevation and 

other data in Myrtle Beach, 

South Carolina, in October 2016, 

prior to Hurricane Matthew 

reaching the eastern coast of 

the United States. Photograph 

by Chris Henry, U.S. Geological 

Survey.

During the next 6 years, the USGS has followed a similar plan for coastal storm deployment. Supplemental water-level data and HWMs were collected and frequently though not 

always published for a series of storms:

• Hurricane Rita (gulf coast)—September 2005 (McGee and others, 2006)

• Hurricane Wilma (southern Florida)—2005 (Soderqvist and Byrne, 2007)

• Hurricane Ernesto (east coast)—August 2006 (unpublished)

• Hurricane Humberto (gulf coast)—September 2007 (unpublished)

• Hurricane Gustav (gulf coast)—September 2008 (McGee and others, 2008)

• Hurricane Ike (gulf coast)—September 2008 (East and others, 2008)

• Hurricane Earl (east coast)—September 2010 (unpublished)

• Hurricane Irene (east coast)—August 2011 (McCallum and others, 2012b)

• Hurricane Isaac (gulf coast)—August 2012 (McCallum and others, 2012a)

• Hurricane Sandy (east coast)—October 2012 (McCallum and others, 2013)

In the decade since Hurricane Rita, USGS storm-response activities have focused on 

providing storm-tide data to researchers working to improve storm-tide models. The stormresponse activities used centralized caches of water-level sensors and rapid-deployment gages 

to locations identified for a particular storm. The USGS collected substantial coastal data during and after Hurricane Sandy to promote the understanding of storm tides (McCallum, 2013). 

Following Hurricane Sandy, the USGS established the SWaTH network along the Atlantic 

coast from North Carolina to Maine to improve the data-collection process and provide needed 

storm-tide, wave, and selected metrological data to further aid understanding of storm-surge 

impacts and help emergency managers with storm response.

There was a dramatic shift in delivering the data to the end user during the Hurricane Irene 

response efforts in 2011. For previous storms, the data had been collected and surveyed several 

months after the storm and delivered by way of a traditional USGS series report within a year. 

As the storm deployments were underway for Hurricane Irene, the USGS built an online data 

delivery system (a mapping application and database) to make the data available to decision 

makers faster than previously possible. Emergency management personnel need data as soon as 

possible following an event to support emergency response in flooded areas. The faster turnaround was at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); with a new 

data system in place and recent staff training, the USGS personnel were able to collect the sensors and survey the locations in less time than it took for previous storms. As a result, decision 

makers were able to use preliminary data within days of when Hurricane Irene made landfall, 

and a report was published 6 months later.

Similar efforts were mounted for Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, with more sites deployed 

and faster delivery of the data. With Hurricane Isaac, efforts were better coordinated to determine prelandfall sites for sensor deployment. For Hurricane Sandy, the largest effort to date, the 

USGS focused on surveying HWMs and increasing the processing and data delivery efficiency.

Since 2011, the USGS has been working on a system to more efficiently collect, deliver, 

and archive these short-term, high-frequency pressure-transducer data and HWMs. By establishing a database to store the surveyed locations, the sensors can be deployed and the data can 

be retrieved and processed faster than before. Following the quiet seasons in terms of storm and 

flooding in 2013 and 2014, the STN system was developed to support data collection, approval, 

and delivery using the flood event viewer (http://water.usgs.gov/floods/FEV/).
Regional Stories 9

Regional Stories

Five regional stories (fig. 4) presented here illustrate past USGS storm-surge monitoring activities and the effect the work has had on understanding local storm-surge and data 

uses. These studies also examine how the SWaTH network may help local, State, and Federal 

agencies and the coastal communities they serve better prepare for future coastal storms and 

access and respond to the flooding that will follow. The following regional stories are 

presented in this report:

• North Carolina—Historic storms and their impacts on the State, with particular 

emphasis on barrier islands and beaches;

• Mid-Atlantic States (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia)—Overview 

of the impacts of Hurricane Sandy on this region;

• New Jersey—Effects of storm-tide flooding caused by Hurricane Sandy at two 

coastal communities;

• New York and Connecticut—Examination of the impacts of Hurricane Sandy, 

timing of maximum storm tide, and comparison with past storms; and

• Massachusetts—Exploring the history that set the stage for recent and future 

property loss.

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 

1:10,000,000, variously dated

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

0 200 400 MILES

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

85° 80° 75° 70°

45°

40°

35°

VIRGINIA

PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

CONNECTICUT

MASSACHUSETTS

NORTH CAROLINA

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE

ATLANTIC OCEAN

CANADA

NEW YORK

Figure 4. The areas of the five regional stories in this report.

U.S. Geological Survey scientist 

installing an auxiliary wave 

sensor at U.S. Geological 

Survey station 01409335, Little 

Egg Inlet near Tuckerton, New 

Jersey. Photograph by Michal 

Niemonczynski, U.S. Geological 

Survey.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists installing storm 

surge sensors before Hurricane Sandy. Photograph by Christopher Schubert, U.S. Geological 

Survey.
10 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

North Carolina

The barrier islands, estuaries, and sounds of North Carolina are among the most valuable resources for the State and 

include more than 3,000 miles of tidal shoreline (fig. 5). The 

Albemarle-Pamlico estuary system is the second largest estuarine complex in the United States, second only to the Chesapeake Bay, and drains an area more than 30,000 square miles. 

This complex and dynamic system can be greatly affected by 

storm events, including tropical storms and nor’easters.

Tropical storms and nor’easters, which typically can 

produce high winds and heavy rains, can wreak havoc on 

the coastal system in North Carolina. In some cases intense 

coastal storms can create new inlets from ocean overwash and 

Raleigh

Durham

Wilmington

Elizabeth 

City

SOUTH

CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, variously dated, various scales

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

ATLANTIC OCEAN

PAMLICO

SOUND

ALBEMARLE SOUND

0 50 100 MILES

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

79° 78° 77° 76°

36°

35°

34°

ONSLOW

BAY

Cape Lookout

PEA ISLAND

NATIONAL

WILDLIFE 

REFUGE

CRAVEN

COUNTY

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

GULF OF

MEXICO

CANADA

ME

NY

PA

FL

GA

SC

AL

KY

MI

IN

TN

OH

WV VA MD

VT

NH

MA

RI

CT

NJ

DE

Map area NC

THE BAHAMA

Figure 5. Barrier islands are one of the main characteristics S

of the coast of North Carolina.
Regional Stories 11

sound-side flooding and inundate vast areas of coastal North 

Carolina. The frequency or estimated return period for hurricanes passing within 50 miles of the coast of North Carolina 

is generally 5 to 7 years, the highest frequency of any coastal 

area along the Atlantic and gulf coasts (fig. 6).

North Carolina has a long history of hurricane impacts, 

from historic events such as Hurricane Hazel in 1954 still 

resonating in the minds of residents to more recent damaging events, including the passage of Hurricane Irene in 

August 2011. Hurricane Hazel brought widespread damage and destruction to the State at the same time as providing much needed relief from an extreme drought in eastern 

North Carolina where many rivers were at or near minimum 

recorded flows. Hurricane Hazel also brought saltwater intrusion in many North Carolina estuaries at or near the maximums witnessed; storm tides associated with the event along 

the coast drove saline water far upstream in many localities. 

The probability of two such rare events (drought followed by 

storm-driven saltwater intrusion) happening concurrently was 

not known but has since been reported by Giese and others 

(1985) to have a recurrence interval that may be reckoned 

in hundreds of years. USGS streamgage networks reported 

the impacts of inland flooding related to rainfall associated 

with Hurricane Hazel; however, a systematic program for 

storm tide documentation was not in place at that time. The 

U.S. Weather Bureau (now known as the National Weather 

Service) in Raleigh reported that “all traces of civilization on 

the immediate waterfront between the State line and Cape Fear 

were practically annihilated,” and Davis (1954, p. 372–373) 

stated that “every pier in a distance of 170 miles of coastline 

was demolished.”

In recent history, Hurricane Irene brought substantial 

flooding to eastern North Carolina. The storm intensified to a 

category 3 hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean as it hit the Bahamas, but gradually weakened and made landfall near Cape 

Lookout, N.C., as a category 1 hurricane, still causing widespread damage across a large part of the eastern United States 

(Avila and Cangialosi, 2011). Hurricane Irene was the first 

hurricane to hit the United States since Hurricane Ike struck 

Texas in 2008 and was the first to threaten the New York City 

area since Hurricane Gloria in 1985 (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2011). Hurricane Irene was 

reported by NOAA to be the 10th billion dollar disaster in 

2011. The passage of Irene resulted in several breaches across 

Return period, in years

EXPLANATION

100° 90° 80° 70°

40°

30° 5 to 7

8 to 11

12 to 16

17 to 24

25 to 50

Coastal county

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH

CAROLINA

ALABAMA GEORGIA MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

TEXAS

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE

CONNECTICUT

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

MAINE

RHODE ISLAND

VIRGINIA

FLORIDA

GULF OF MEXICO

ATLANTIC OCEAN

0 400 600 800 MILES

0 400 600

200

200 800 KILOMETERS

Figure 6. Hurricanes return to the eastern and southern coasts of the United States as much as every 5 to 50 years. Map modified 

from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2015b).
12 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

the barrier islands and widespread storm-tide flooding across 

the coastal plain of North Carolina.

One of the barrier island breaches just south of the Pea 

Island National Wildlife Refuge severed North Carolina Highway 12 and effectively cut off access to the barrier islands 

south of the breach. The USGS reported that ocean-side surge 

and subsequent sound-side flooding (as the winds blew from 

west to east across the vast Pamlico Sound) contributed to the 

breach (fig. 7). A temporary bridge was subsequently installed 

to restore access to these areas, which remained in place until 

March 2016 when construction of an interim bridge replacement project began. The interim bridge will be easier to maintain and provide safe access pending the results of a North 

Carolina Department of Transportation study of permanent 

solutions for maintaining access at Pea Island.

After the passage of Hurricane Emily in 1993, the USGS 

identified a total of 108 HWMs on the outer banks of North 

Carolina. Sixty-two of these HWMs were subsequently 

selected to provide a representation of the flooded area and 

surveying was completed to determine the latitude, longitude, 

and elevation of each mark. After the passage of Hurricanes 

Bertha and Fran in 1996, the USGS also collected HWMs in 

coastal surge-affected environments and in riverine settings 

where inland flooding from excess rainfall also was evident. 

HWM data collection in riverine environments after the passage of Hurricane Floyd in 1999 was the primary post-storm 

data collection activity by the USGS in North Carolina. This 

post-storm data collection supplemented the monitoring of 

inland streamgages and measurement of streamflow used to 

document this epic event, which resulted in flooding in excess 

of the 500-year (0.20-percent exceedance) event in each of 

the major coastal river basins in the State (Bales and others, 

2000). Hurricane Floyd and events just before and after 

the storm resulted in 2 months of flooding in eastern North 

Carolina, with rainfall totals for September through October 

1999 exceeding 30 inches in some locations, or more than 

one-half the annual rainfall average (Bales and others, 2000) 

for the region.

With the advent of the mobile storm-tide network 

developed by the USGS in Ruston, Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina, storm-tide monitoring became a prestorm and 

post-storm event that has allowed for the collection of peak (or 

HWM) data for the documentation of storm-tide and inland 

riverine flooding at ungaged locations and has provided time 

series data of the entire storm-tide flood. Placement of small, 

submersible pressure transducers in advance of coastal storms 

and at locations forecast to be affected by storm-tide flooding 

has allowed the USGS to supplement traditional HWM data 

with information about the flood timing and about the rise, 

fall, and duration of the event. In North Carolina, these mobile 

storm-tide networks were deployed for Tropical Storm Ernesto 

(2006), Hurricane Earl (2010), and Hurricane Irene (2011).

The largest deployment of the mobile storm-tide network 

in North Carolina was for Hurricane Irene and consisted of 

42 storm-tide sensors and 19 barometric pressure sensors. 

This deployment was part of a large effort of storm-tide sensor 

deployments from South Carolina to Maine, where 224 locations were monitored for storm tide. Independent HWMs were 

also collected at an additional 137 locations. Storm-tide elevations above 7 feet relative to the NAVD 88 were reported in 

selected areas in Craven County, N.C. (fig. 8).

With the passage of Hurricane Sandy and in accordance 

with the USGS Hurricane Sandy science plan (Buxton and 

others, 2013) to provide continued data collection and analysis 

for severe coastal storms and to ensure support for recovery 

and restoration efforts, the mobile storm-tide network has 

evolved to include permanent locations with known elevations that can quickly be instrumented with sensors. In North 

Carolina, the USGS has identified more than 150 locations 

that can be considered for storm-tide sensor deployment in 

A B

12 ATLANTIC OCEAN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

12

Figure 7. Satellite images show the effects of Hurricane Irene on North Carolina State Highway 12 south of Pea Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, N.C. (not shown), in A, March 2011 and B, August 2011. Images from Google Earth, accessed March 28, 2015.
Regional Stories 13

advance of future storms expected to make landfall. With the 

passage of Hurricane Matthew off the coast of the southeastern 

United States in October 2016, the USGS deployed its largest 

network of storm-tide sensors to date. A temporary network of 

water-level and barometric pressure sensors were deployed at 

288 locations along the Atlantic coast from Florida to North 

Carolina to record the timing, areal extent, and magnitude of 

hurricane storm tide and coastal flooding. The collection of 

543 HWMs following Matthew was the second largest HWM 

recovery effort after Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

13.0

13.1

13.2

13.3

13.4

13.5

13.6

13.7

13.8

13.9

14.0

14.1

14.2

14.3

14.4

14.5

14.6

14.7

14.8

14.9

15.0

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

12 p.m.

24

12 a.m.

25

12 p.m.

25

12 a.m.

26

12 p.m.

26

12 a.m.

27

12 p.m.

27

12 a.m.

28

12 p.m.

28

12 a.m.

29

12 p.m.

29

12 a.m.

30

12 p.m.

30

Barometric pressure, in pounds per square inch

Water-level elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

August 2011

Water level

Lowest recordable water elevation

HWM-NC-CRV-201

Barometric pressure

EXPLANATION

High-water mark (HWM-NC-CRV-201)

Figure 8. In general terms, as barometric pressure drops, the elevation of the storm tide rises, as happened during Hurricane 

Irene between August 24 and 30, 2011, at a high-water mark recorded at the Bridgeport Hotel and Marina in Craven County, 

North Carolina. Graph modified from McCallum and others (2012b).

House damaged by Hurricane 

Irene. Photograph by Jonathan J. 

Graham, U.S. Geological Survey.
14 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Mid-Atlantic States

The Mid-Atlantic region of the east coast comprises 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. In this 

region, three coastal water bodies are impacted by tropical 

systems and nor’easters: the Delaware River, the Delaware 

Bay, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Atlantic Ocean (fig. 9). Each 

system has its own unique hydrology, land use, and population 

matrices that create varying degrees of issues related to coastal 

flooding and other impacts.

The Delaware River and Delaware Bay form a natural 

boundary between parts of New York, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, and Delaware. The total length of the Delaware 

River is approximately 400 miles, which drains more than 

11,000 square miles of land-surface area (Encyclopedia 

Britannica, 2014). The Delaware River is subject to tidal 

influence from the Atlantic Ocean through the Delaware Bay, 

continuing upstream to Trenton, N.J., which is about 130 miles 

above the mouth of the Delaware River. The Delaware River 

flows between the cities of Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden, 

N.J. Philadelphia is the fifth largest city (by population) in 

the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The lower end 

of the Delaware River and estuary host the world’s largest 

horseshoe crab population and an active commercial fishery, 

yet are marked by heavy industry and busy shipping traffic 

(Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 2016). To facilitate traffic on 

the river, channels have been dredged from the Delaware Bay 

to Philadelphia and from Philadelphia to Trenton (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014).

The Chesapeake Bay is a 200-mile-long estuary that lies 

between the eastern edge of North America and the Delmarva 

Peninsula (Phillips, 2001). The Chesapeake Bay watershed 

includes parts of six States and Washington, D.C. The Susquehanna River feeds the northern part of the Chesapeake Bay, 

with the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers 

serving as the major tributaries travelling south to the mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay and its adjoining estuaries are subject to tidal influence from the Atlantic 

Ocean upstream from the Fall Line, which runs from Roanoke 

Rapids, N.C., through Washington, D.C., and into Philadelphia 

(fig. 9).

Much of the Chesapeake Bay region is rural with agriculture forming a large component of land use. Increased runoff 

and pollution have created major issues in the Chesapeake 

Bay, especially affecting the lucrative shellfish industry. Major 

cities along the Chesapeake Bay are Baltimore and Annapolis, 

Md., and the sprawling Hampton Roads, Va., metropolitan 

region near the mouth of the bay. Hampton Roads is a large 

natural harbor, incorporating the mouths of the Elizabeth, 

James, and Nansemond Rivers along with several smaller 

rivers and emptying into the Chesapeake Bay near its mouth. 

Hampton Roads is populated by more than 1 million people 

and is home to Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval 

complex in the world (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). 

The combination of population demands, geography, and 

topography of the Hampton Roads region has contributed to 

above-average land subsidence rates, which, in combination 

with sea-level rise, have raised concerns about the long-term 

viability of this area (Eggleston and Pope, 2013).

Parts of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia front the 

Atlantic Ocean. A robust network of barrier islands along the 

coast dampen some of the impacts from storms, but resort 

communities such as Rehoboth Beach, Del., Ocean City, Md., 

and Chincoteague Island, Va., are all subject to substantial 

coastal flooding and erosion issues that result from coastal 

storms. Much of the Atlantic coast in this area is not heavily developed or populated; nonetheless, the area has unique 

marine and terrestrial habitats, provides a buffer to the mainland against storms, and is the home to national infrastructure 

such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Wallops Flight Facility in Chincoteague, Va., and the Virginia 

Commercial Space Flight Authority Mid-Atlantic Space Port 

on Wallops Island, Va. (Banks and others, 2012).

Impacts of Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy began to batter the Mid-Atlantic coast 

during the afternoon of October 29, 2012. Within hours, the 

storm surge from the westward moving hurricane coupled 

with a high tide was causing unprecedented damage along the 

eastern seaboard. In Baltimore, 150 miles south of Atlantic 

City, N.J., where the storm made landfall, rain from the storm 

continued to fall through October 30, producing 6.8 inches of 

precipitation. As Hurricane Sandy continued west into Pennsylvania, a strong southeasterly flow on the backside of the 

storm directed up Delaware Bay produced dangerously high 

water levels in the tidal sections of the Delaware River at and 

near Philadelphia.

For nearly 3 days during the storm, commuter train and 

bus services in the Baltimore-Washington area were inoperative and schools and government offices were closed. Damages in Ocean City, Maryland’s Atlantic beach resort, included 

the destruction of an iconic fishing pier, whereas further west, 

cars were stranded and roads were closed as a result of heavy 

snows. Hurricane Sandy provided some areas of the MidAtlantic region with damaging wind gusts, especially in New 

Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, resulting in many downed 

trees and power lines.

At the Philadelphia Navy Yard, a peak water-surface 

elevation of 7.5 feet exceeded the top of the protective seawall 

and bulkhead by approximately 1 foot. Near Lewes, Del., the 

peak water level recorded was 8.2 feet, and further south on 
Regional Stories 15

the Chesapeake Bay side of the Delmarva Peninsula, water 

levels reached just over 6 feet on Hunting Creek near Parksley, 

Va. (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012).

Tidal Monitoring by the USGS

In advance of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS water science 

centers in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, 

deployed a variety of temporary water-level monitors throughout the region. The locations for the sensors were determined 

in the field as crews searched for places to install them; in 

most cases, little preplanning went into the site selection 

or surveying at any of these locations. In the end, 27 sensors were deployed and 31 HWMs were retrieved. None of 

these sensors were real-time, meaning that the data were not 

transmitted to the database on an hourly basis, as is done with 

other continuous recording streamgages and groundwater 

observation wells.

With the development and implementation of the SWaTH 

network, the USGS water science centers in the Mid-Atlantic 

region now [2016] have 20 temporary real-time rapiddeployment gages along with 129 temporary storm-tide and 

wave sensors. Additionally, 17 permanent real-time tide gages 

have been installed as part of this effort in cooperation with 

Federal, State, and local entities. As a result, the coastal communities of the Mid-Atlantic States will now have much more 

real-time data available to make better-informed decisions, 

and modelers will have more data available to enhance existing and develop new storm-surge models.

0 30 60 90 120 MILES

0 30 60 90 120 KILOMETERS

Base map copyright Esri and its licensors, 2014

State boundaries and cities from U.S. Census Bureau digital data, 1:2,000,000, 2014

Streams from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000, 2014

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

WEST VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

MARYLAND

CT

KENTUCKY

VT

MA

MICHIGAN

TENNESSEE

Annapolis

Ocean City

Baltimore

New York City

Roanoke Rapids e Rapids

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Chincoteague Island

Norfolk

Richmond

Charleston

Rehoboth Beach

Ocean City

Camden

Trenton

Atlantic City

CHESAPEAKE BAY

DELAWARE BAY

Virginia Beach

Delmarva 

Peninsula

84° 82° 80° 78° 76° 74° 72°

42°

40°

38°

36°

Susquehanna R iver Susquehanna R iver

Delaware RiverDelaware River

Potomac RiverPotomac River

Rappahannock River Rappahannock Riv

Y

er

ork

River YorkRiver

James River James River

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Washington, D.C.

CANADA

UNITED STATES

OHIO

NORTH CAROLINA

Hampton Roads metropolitan region

Naval Station Norfolk

Wallops Island Flight Facility 

and Mid-Atlantic Space Port

Lewes

Parksley

Philadelphia Navy Yard

Elizabeth River

Nansemod River

DE

NJ

NH

EXPLANATION

Fall line—From Fenneman 

and Johnson (1946)

Figure 9. The rivers and streams of the Mid-Atlantic region drain into three main waterbodies that are impacted by tropical 

systems and nor’easters.
16 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

New Jersey

Although Hurricane Sandy made landfall near Atlantic 

City, the effects to coastal communities were measurably 

different for areas on the north (or the right side) of the storm 

compared with communities to the south (or the left side) 

of the storm. Tropical systems like hurricanes have a counterclockwise rotation; as hurricanes approach the east coast, 

the upper-right quadrant of the storm can be considered the 

most dangerous area for creating wind driven storm tide and 

surge (Graham and Riebeek, 2015). For Hurricane Sandy, the 

National Weather Service reported sustained onshore winds 

of 50 to 60 miles per hour along the coast of New Jersey from 

north of Atlantic City to New York City, with much higher 

speeds for wind gusts.

The USGS tide gages in the areas of Cape May and the 

Wildwoods recorded new period-of-record maximum tide 

elevations resulting from the effects of Hurricane Sandy 

(figs. 10 and 11). The USGS tide and tidal crest-stage gages 

near Cape May, North Wildwood, and Wildwood recorded 

75°30’ 75° 74°30’ 74° 73°30’

40°

39°

39°30’

40°30’

41°

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE

MARYLAND

SUSSEX

PASSAIC

BERGEN

WARREN

MORRIS

ESSEX

UNION

HUDSON

HUNTERDON

SOMERSET

MIDDLESEX

MERCER

MONMOUTH

OCEAN BURLINGTON

CAMDEN GLOUCESTER

SALEM

CUMBERLAND

ATLANTIC

CAPE MAY

Perth Amboy

0 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Raritan

Bay 01407081 

Raritan Bay at 

Keansburg

01407600 

Shrewsbury River 

at Sea Bright

01408050 

Manasquan River at 

Point Pleasant

01411390

Cape May Harbor

at Cape May

North Wildwood

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 

variously dated, various scales

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N 

North American Datum of 1983

Cape

May

Point Pleasant

Wildwood

Keansburg

Sea Bright

U.S. Geological Survey 

tide gage and 

identifier

EXPLANATION

01411390

Cape May Harbor

at Cape May

Figure 10. The surge at Cape May on October 29, 2012, during Hurricane Sandy reached as much as 6 feet, whereas the tide 

gages at Raritan Bay, Sea Bright, and Point Pleasant recorded surges between 8 and more than 12 feet.
Regional Stories 17

peak storm-tide elevations that ranged from about 5 to 7 feet 

above NAVD 88. Although the storm tide was a new record 

elevation for Cape May Harbor, the peak storm tide was 

slightly out of phase with the predicted astronomical high tide, 

which resulted in the estimated peak storm surge being computed between high and low tide. The peak storm surge for the 

USGS Cape May Harbor at Cape May tide gage (USGS station 01411390; fig. 10) was estimated to be greater than 6 feet 

above NAVD 88 in the evening of October 29, 2012.

For the communities to the north along the coast of New 

Jersey, the conditions and events were different. The communities north of Atlantic City were on the right side of the storm 

and as a result experienced much higher storm tides associated 

with this storm. As Hurricane Sandy turned and approached 

the coast, the extremely wide wind field was directed onshore 

from the east. The USGS tide gages in the areas of Point 

Pleasant and Sea Bright recorded much higher wind-driven 

storm tides with peak storm-tide elevations in excess of 9 feet 

above NAVD 88 (figs. 10 and 11). In addition to stronger 

winds directed onshore, the timing of the storm tide with 

the predicted tide was more in phase for the areas of Point 

Pleasant, Sea Bright, and Raritan Bay. The estimated storm 

surge for the Point Pleasant (USGS station 01408050) and Sea 

Bright (USGS station 01407600) tide gages was greater than 

8 feet, and for Raritan Bay at the USGS tide gage at Keansburg, N.J. (USGS station 01407081), greater than 12 feet.

The average elevation at the communities of Cape 

May and Wildwood is generally less than about 9 feet above 

NAVD 88, whereas the general elevations of selected locations in the areas of Point Pleasant and Sea Bright are generally at or above about 8 to 9 feet above NAVD 88. The storm 

track and magnitude of Hurricane Sandy made it an extremely 

dangerous storm for all communities along the coast of New 

Jersey, but strong winds directed onshore from the east in 

combination with high tide produced higher peak tide 

elevations for communities to the north of where the eye of 

the storm made landfall than for communities to the south.

01408050 Manasquan River at Point Pleasant, New Jersey

01411390 Cape May Harbor at Cape May, New Jersey

10/28/2012 10/30/2012

10/28/2012 10/30/2012

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

16

Water-surface elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

Date

EXPLANATION

Observed

Estimated predicted

Storm surge (observed minus predicted)

Peak storm tide

Peak storm surge

Peak storm surge

Peak storm tide

Figure 11. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration predicts tidal elevations and the U.S. Geological 

Survey measures observed tidal elevations and storm surge for 

storms such as Hurricane Sandy.

Hurricane Sandy severely damaged the coast of New Jersey in 

areas such as Mantoloking. Aerial photograph courtesy of Greg 

Thompson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
18 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

New York and Connecticut

The coastline of New York and Connecticut are highly 

diverse, from the rocky shorelines of Long Island Sound in 

southern Connecticut to the highly urbanized communities in 

and around New York City to the pristine barrier beaches and 

tidal estuaries along Long Island’s Atlantic coast. The coastal 

communities in this region are a major part of the area’s vitality. Coastal tourism, fisheries, and maritime transportation are 

a major part of the economy for the area, and severe coastal 

storms can have substantial economic impact on the region.

Hurricane Sandy made landfall in southern New Jersey 

on October 30, 2012, and severely impacted the New York and 

Connecticut coastline. Many areas that had been hit by Hurricane Irene a year before, in August 2011, were again battered 

by strong waves and tidal flooding. Severe erosion of beaches 

and dunes occurred, barrier islands were breached, and 

extensive inundation and wave damage to homes and business 

along the coastal flood plain occurred (fig. 12). Loss of life 

attributed to Hurricane Sandy was estimated to be 53 persons 

in New York and 4 in Connecticut (Center for Disease Control 

and Prevention, 2012). Economic losses from the storm were 

estimated to be $42 billion in New York (New York State 

Governor’s Office, 2012).

Monitoring the Storm

The extremely large fetch of winds associated with 

Hurricane Sandy combined with the hurricane’s anomalous 

track piled large amounts of ocean water, over multiple tidal 

cycles, north and west of the center of the counterclockwise circulation. This onshore flow pushed a substantial 

tidal surge towards the coastline, producing major to historical coastal flooding along parts of the New York and 

Connecticut coastlines (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2013).

Before the storm made landfall, the USGS deployed a 

temporary network of 71 storm-tide and wave sensors along 

the coastline of southeastern New York and southern Connecticut (fig. 13A), as part of a larger deployment of 224 sensors from South Carolina to Maine, to record the elevation of 

storm-tide flooding generated by Hurricane Sandy. This sensor 

network augmented NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), and USGS networks comprising 32 permanent tide 

monitoring or tidally affected streamgaging stations in the 

region that also documented storm surge and storm tide from 

the storm (fig. 13A). Continuous data from these networks 

A B C

D E

Figure 12. Coastal communities 

across coastal New York were damaged 

by Hurricane Sandy. A, Photograph 

by William Capurso, U.S. Geological 

Survey. B, Photograph by David Bjerklie, 

U.S. Geological Survey. C, Photograph 

by Amy Simonson, U.S. Geological 

Survey. D, Photograph by Michael Como, 

U.S. Geological Survey. E, Photograph by 

Karen Morgan, U.S. Geological Survey.
Regional Stories 19

SUFFOLK

FAIRFIELD

NEW HAVEN

ORANGE

DUTCHESS LITCHFIELD

HARTFORD

NASSAU

ULSTER

BERGEN

PUTNAM

KENT

WASHINGTON

WINDHAM TOLLAND

ROCKLAND

QUEENS

PROVIDENCE

SUFFOLK

ESSEX

KINGS

UNION

RICHMOND

MORRIS

NEW LONDON

MIDDLESEX

WESTCHESTER

BRONX

HUDSON

74° 73° 72°

41°30’

41°

40°30’

NEW 

JERSEY

NEW YORK

CONNECTICUT

LONG ISLAND SOUND

PECONIC BAY

Hudson RiverHudson River

Westhampton Beach

Montauk

Peconic Estuary

New York

City

Floyd Bennett Field

Bridgeport

Fire Island

Kings Point

Staten Island

Fairfield

Glen Cove

West Haven

West River

Long Island

A

RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK

Connecti c ut RiverConnecti c ut River

ATLANTIC OCEAN 0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales, variously dated

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

7

1

9

8

5

4

3

2

6

21

29

20

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

19

18

17

14 12 13

10

16 11

30

15

31

32

EXPLANATION

Permanent station

Storm-tide sensor

Figure 13. Permanent stations and storm-tide sensor locations, storm-surge magnitudes, and peak stormtide elevations for Hurricane Sandy. A, Location of 32 permanent stations and 71 temporary storm-tide sensors 

deployed for Hurricane Sandy in southeastern New York and southern Connecticut.

SUFFOLK

FAIRFIELD

NEW HAVEN

ORANGE

DUTCHESS LITCHFIELD

HARTFORD

NASSAU

ULSTER

BERGEN

PUTNAM

KENT

WASHINGTON

WINDHAM TOLLAND

ROCKLAND

QUEENS

PROVIDENCE

SUFFOLK

ESSEX

KINGS

UNION

RICHMOND

MORRIS

NEW LONDON

MIDDLESEX

WESTCHESTER

BRONX

HUDSON

74° 73° 72°

41°30’

41°

40°30’

NEW 

JERSEY

NEW YORK

CONNECTICUT

LONG ISLAND SOUND

PECONIC BAY

Hudson RiverHudson River

Westhampton Beach

Montauk

Peconic Estuary

New York

City

Floyd Bennett Field

Bridgeport

Fire Island

Kings Point

Staten Island

Fairfield

Glen Cove

West Haven

West River

Long Island

B

RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK

Connecti c ut RiverConnecti c ut River

ATLANTIC OCEAN

7

1

9

6

29

20

28

27

26

22

19

18

17

14

1213

11

30 25

8516945 (NOAA KPTN6)

8510560 

(NOAA MTKN6)

24

23

EXPLANATION

Storm surge, in feet

>4 to 6

>6 to 8

>8 to 12

>12 to 19

0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales, variously dated

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

Figure 13. Permanent stations and storm-tide sensor locations, storm-surge magnitudes, and peak storm-tide 

elevations for Hurricane Sandy. B, Storm-surge magnitudes produced by Hurricane Sandy at 21 permanent 

stations in southeastern New York and southern Connecticut.—Continued
20 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

SUFFOLK

FAIRFIELD

NEW HAVEN

ORANGE

DUTCHESS LITCHFIELD

HARTFORD

NASSAU

ULSTER

BERGEN

PUTNAM

KENT

WASHINGTON

WINDHAM TOLLAND

ROCKLAND

QUEENS

PROVIDENCE

SUFFOLK

ESSEX

KINGS

UNION

RICHMOND

MORRIS

NEW LONDON

MIDDLESEX

WESTCHESTER

BRONX

HUDSON

74° 73° 72°

41°30’

41°

40°30’

NEW 

JERSEY

NEW YORK

CONNECTICUT

LONG ISLAND SOUND

PECONIC BAY

Hudson RiverHudson River

Westhampton Beach

Montauk

Peconic Estuary

New York

City

Floyd Bennett Field

Bridgeport

Fire Island

Kings Point

Staten Island

Fairfield

Glen Cove

West Haven

West River

Long Island

C

RHODE

ISLAND

NEW YORK

Connecti c ut RiverConnecti c ut River

ATLANTIC OCEAN 0 20 40 MILES

0 20 40 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales, variously dated

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

EXPLANATION

Peak storm tide, in feet 

above NAVD 88

>4 to 6

0 to 4

>6 to 8

>8 to 12

>12 to 19

Figure 13. Permanent stations and storm-tide sensor locations, storm-surge magnitudes, and peak storm-tide

elevations for Hurricane Sandy. C, Peak storm-tide elevations produced by Hurricane Sandy at permanent gages, 

deployed temporary storm-tide sensors, and collected high-water mark locations in southeastern New York and 

southern Connecticut. NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988.—Continued

were supplemented by an extensive post-storm HWM flagging and surveying campaign at about 500 sites along the 

coast. The sensor deployment and HWM campaigns were 

completed by the USGS under a directed mission assignment 

from FEMA.

Data from selected permanent stations in the USGS 

network and from sites in the NOAA and USACE networks 

document Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. For these stations 

and sites, residual water levels were calculated to assess the 

storm-surge magnitude associated with the peak storm tide and 

the magnitude and timing of the peak storm surge. As shown 

by data collected from this network, the phasing of maximum 

storm surge with that of astronomical high tide was a major 

factor in determining which areas received the greatest stormtide inundation.

Peak Storm Surge

Most magnitudes of peak storm surge from Hurricane 

Sandy at 21 permanent stations along the southeastern New 

York and southern Connecticut coasts (fig. 13B) were greater 

than about 8.2 feet, with the greatest magnitude along the 

shorelines of central and western Long Island Sound and the 

southern shore of New York City. The maximum magnitude of 

peak storm surge was 12.65 feet above NAVD 88 at permanent 

station 8516945 (NOAA tide gage KPTN6) in western Long 

Island Sound at Kings Point, N.Y. (table 1). The minimum 

magnitude of peak storm surge was 5.89 feet above NAVD 88 

at permanent station 8510560 (NOAA tide gage MTKN6) 

at Montauk, N.Y., near the extreme eastern tip of Long 

Island, N.Y.

Peak Storm Tide

Most peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy 

along the southeastern New York and southern Connecticut 

coasts (fig. 13C; table 1) were greater than about 8 feet above 

NAVD 88. This level, however, was greatly exceeded at most 

of the sites located along the shorelines of central and western Long Island Sound, the southern shore of western Long 

Island and New York City, and the lower Hudson River, where 

storm-tide flooding was greatest. In the remaining areas—the 

shorelines of southeastern Connecticut and the southern shore 

of central and eastern Long Island—peak storm-tide elevations 

were greater than about 6 feet above NAVD 88 at most sites.

The maximum peak storm-tide elevation for New York 

was 16.9 feet above NAVD 88 at site HWM–NY–RIC–717 on 

Staten Island, N.Y. (fig. 13C), and the maximum peak stormtide elevation for Connecticut was 12.2 feet above NAVD 88 

at site HWM–CT–FFD–628 in Fairfield, Conn. The minimum 

peak storm-tide elevation for New York was 3.5 feet above 

NAVD 88 at site HWM–NY–SUF–638 in Westhampton 
Regional Stories 21

Table 1. Storm-surge magnitude, peak storm tide, and magnitude and timing of the peak storm surge associated with the peak storm 

tide produced by Hurricane Sandy at 32 permanent stations in southeastern New York and southern Connecticut.

[Negative time difference denotes a peak storm surge that preceded the peak storm tide. Permanent stations are shown in figure 12A. Peak storm-tide and surge 

records for Hurricane Sandy at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sites from Fanelli and others (2013). Storm-tide elevation associated 

with the peak storm surge at NOAA sites from National Ocean Service (2013). Peak storm-tide elevations in North American Vertical Datum of 1988. USACE, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; —, no value]

Map 

number Station number Station name

Peak 

storm-surge 

magnitude 

(feet)

Peak 

storm-tide 

elevation 

(feet)

Storm surge 

at time of peak 

storm tide

Peak 

surge/tide 

time difference 

(minutes)

1 8461490–NOAA Station NLNC3 at New London, Connecticut 6.50 6.16 5.91 –78

2 01190070 Connecticut River at Hartford, Connecticut — 7.91 — —

3 01193050 Connecticut River at Middle Haddam, Connecticut — 7.45 — —

4 01194750 Connecticut River at Essex, Connecticut — 6.98 — —

5 01194796 Connecticut River at Old Lyme, Connecticut — 7.04 — —

6 8465705–NOAA Station NWHC3 at New Haven, Connecticut 9.14 — 8.13 –90

7 8467150–NOAA Station BRHC3 at Bridgeport, Connecticut 9.83 9.30 7.84 –108

8 01208873 Rooster River at Fairfield, Connecticut — 9.40 — —

9 01209788–USACE Stamford Hurricane Barrier at Stamford, Connecticut 11.24 9.99 8.73 –180

10 01302050 Alley Creek near Oakland Gardens, New York — 9.69 — —

11 8516945–NOAA Station KPTN6 at Kings Point, New York 12.65 — 8.54 –186

12 01302250 East Creek at Sands Point, New York 11.84 10.31 8.24 –174

13 01302600 West Pond at Glen Cove, New York 11.52 9.87 7.26 –222

14 01302845 Frost Creek at Sheep Lane Bridge at Lattingtown, 

New York

10.76 10.06 7.59 –192

15 101303000 Mill Neck Creek at Mill Neck, New York — 10.22 — —

16 201303500 Cold Spring Brook at Cold Spring Harbor, New York — 9.98 — —

17 01304057 Flax Pond at Old Field, New York 9.56 9.35 7.99 –102

18 01304200 Orient Harbor at Orient, New York 7.18 6.43 6.00 –204

19 01304562 Peconic River at County Highway 105 at Riverhead, 

New York

9.16 7.65 8.31 114

20 8510560–NOAA Station MTKN6 at Montauk, New York 5.89 5.55 5.24 –120

21 201306499 Connetquot River near North Great River, New York — 6.06 — —

22 01309225 Great South Bay at Lindenhurst, New York 6.38 6.54 6.27 –126

23 01310521 Hudson Bay at Freeport, New York 7.92 8.98 7.85 24

24 01310740 Reynolds Channel at Point Lookout, New York 7.78 8.97 7.66 30

25 01311143 Hog Island Channel at Island Park, New York 8.32 9.77 8.14 36

26 01311145 East Rockaway Inlet at Atlantic Beach, New York 8.21 9.70 8.08 30

27 01311850 Jamaica Bay at Inwood, New York 8.47 10.55 8.38 24

28 01311875 Rockaway Inlet near Floyd Bennett Field, New York 9.13 10.65 8.72 36

29 8518750–NOAA Station BATN6 at The Battery, New York 9.40 11.28 9.40 0

30 8519483–NOAA Station BGNN4 at Bergen Point West Reach, 

New York

9.56 — 9.43 24

31 201376269 Hudson River at Piermont, New York — 9.70 — —

32 201374019 Hudson River at South Dock at West Point, 

New York

— 8.60 — —

1

Permanent streamflow monitoring station was discontinued in February 2011; peak elevation for Hurricane Sandy uses value from temporary storm-tide 

sensor deployed at the station.

2

Measurement limit at permanent streamflow monitoring station was exceeded during Hurricane Sandy; peak elevation for this storm uses value from 

collocated temporary storm-tide sensor or high-water mark.
22 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Beach, N.Y., and for Connecticut was 2.5 feet above NAVD 88 

at site HWM–CT–NHV–327 in West Haven, Conn., upstream 

from the tide gates on the West River. A table of peak stormtide elevations for all Hurricane Sandy sensor locations and 

most of the collected HWMs is available from McCallum and 

others (2013) and from the flood event viewer (https://stn.wim.

usgs.gov/fev/#Sandy).

Timing of Maximum Surge

Of the 21 permanent stations that recorded surge 

(table 1), the peak storm surge arrived within 36 minutes of 

the time of peak storm tide at 8 sites, all of which are along 

the Atlantic Ocean shorelines of western Long Island and 

New York City. This condition resulted from the peak storm 

surge arriving in phase with the astronomical tide—generally 

coinciding with astronomical high tide—at the 21 permanent 

stations (Schubert and Busciolano, 2013). In contrast, the 

peak storm surge preceded the time of peak storm tide by 

78 minutes or more at 12 sites mainly along the Connecticut 

and New York shorelines of Long Island Sound and extreme 

eastern Long Island and followed the time of peak storm tide 

by 114 minutes at 1 site at the head of the Peconic Estuary on 

eastern Long Island. In both cases, peak storm surge arrived 

out of phase with the astronomical tide; nearly coinciding with 

the normal mid to low tide locally at these sites.

Hydrographs of selected sites showing timing of maximum storm surge with that of peak storm tide and predicted 

local astronomical tide are shown in figure 14. The hydrographs in figure 14A, 14B, and 14C show stations where 

peak storm surge occurred out of phase, and the hydrograph in figure 14D shows peak storm surge in phase with 

astronomical tide.

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Date and time

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10/28/12

00:00

10/28/12

12:00

10/29/12

00:00

10/29/12

12:00

 10/30/12

00:00 

10/30/12

12:00

 10/31/12

00:00

11/01/12

00:00

11/01/12

12:00

11/02/12

00:00

10/31/12

12:00

10/28/12

00:00

10/28/12

12:00

10/29/12

00:00

10/29/12

12:00

 10/30/12

00:00 

10/30/12

12:00

 10/31/12

00:00

11/01/12

00:00

11/01/12

12:00

11/02/12

00:00

Date and time

10/31/12

12:00

Water-level elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date and time

10/28/12

00:00

10/28/12

12:00

10/29/12

00:00

10/29/12

12:00

 10/30/12

00:00 

10/30/12

12:00

 10/31/12

00:00

11/01/12

00:00

11/01/12

12:00

11/02/12

00:00

10/31/12

12:00

Date and time

10/28/12

00:00

10/28/12

12:00

10/29/12

00:00

10/29/12

12:00

 10/30/12

00:00 

10/30/12

12:00

 10/31/12

00:00

11/01/12

00:00

11/01/12

12:00

11/02/12

00:00

10/31/12

12:00

Observed water level (storm tide)

Residiual water level (storm surge)

Predicted astronomical tide

EXPLANATION

Figure 14. A comparison of storm tide and storm surge resulting from Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 with astronomical predicted 

tides (without the effects of a storm) shows the magnitude of the storm surge and tide from the hurricane. A, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) station 8467150 at Bridgeport, Conn.; B, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) station 01302600 at Glen 

Cove, N.Y.; C, NOAA station 8510560 at Montauk, N.Y.; and D, USGS station 01311875 at Floyd Bennett Field, N.Y.
Regional Stories 23

Timing of peak storm surge arrival with respect to local 

phase of astronomical tide controlled the location of the most 

extreme peak storm-tide levels and coastal flooding. This finding has bearing not only for locations impacted by the highest 

storm tides from Hurricane Sandy but also for locations that 

had the greatest storm surges yet were spared the worst flooding because of fortuitous timing during this storm.

Comparison With Previous Storms and Historical 

Peaks

Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were 

compared with data from other storms of record in the region 

including Hurricane Irene (which made landfall near New 

York City in August 2011), the nor’easter of December 1992 

(which affected the region for 3 days in December 1992), Hurricane Donna (which made landfall on eastern Long Island as 

a category 3 hurricane and then eastern Connecticut as a category 2 hurricane in September 1960), Hurricane Carol (which 

made landfall on eastern Long Island and eastern Connecticut 

as a category 3 hurricane in August 1954), and the Great New 

England Hurricane of 1938 (which made landfall over central 

Long Island and central Connecticut as a category 3 hurricane 

in September 1938).

Of the 29 permanent stations along the southeastern New 

York and southern Connecticut coasts that recorded storm 

tide, the peak storm-tide elevation from Hurricane Sandy 

exceeded the historical peak water-level elevation produced 

by past storms at 18 of the 23 sites (table 2). Six of the 29 sites 

are streamgages where historical peaks were produced by 

high streamflow; therefore, these peaks were omitted for 

comparison.

Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were 

lower than elevations produced by the unnamed hurricane of 

1938 at two sites in central and western Long Island Sound; 

however, because only 5 of the 29 stations have historical 

records going back to the unnamed hurricane of 1938, the 

unnamed hurricane of 1938 possibly could have produced 

higher storm tides than Hurricane Sandy throughout much of 

the New York and Connecticut shorelines of central and eastern Long Island Sound and along parts of eastern Long Island. 

Based on a comparison with published profiles (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 1988), storm-tide elevations measured 

during Hurricane Sandy were greater than those from the 

unnamed hurricane of 1938 for most parts of western Long 

Island Sound by as much as 1.5 feet, whereas in eastern Long 

Island Sound, storm-tide elevations were more than 2.5 feet 

lower during Hurricane Sandy.

Peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were 

also lower than elevations produced by Hurricane Carol at 

one site located on eastern Long Island. Because only 7 of 

the 29 stations have historical records going back to Hurricane Carol in 1954, it is probable that this hurricane produced higher storm tides than Hurricane Sandy in many parts 

of eastern Long Island Sound and along the eastern end of 

Long Island.

For the three other storms of record, peak storm-tide 

elevations from Hurricane Sandy were lower than elevations 

produced by the unnamed intense nor’easter of 1992 at one 

site in western Long Island Sound and one site in Peconic Bay 

on the eastern end of Long Island, and peak storm-tide elevations from Hurricane Sandy were higher than elevations at all 

sites for both Hurricane Donna and Hurricane Irene.

Improved Monitoring Through the SWaTH 

Network

For the southeastern New York and southern Connecticut coastline, the SWaTH network upgrade entailed the 

installation of 7 new flood-hardened, permanent stations to 

supplement the 32 existing stations, the addition of 17 stormdeployed rapid-deployment gages, and as many as 125 stormdeployed storm-tide and wave sensors. Documenting the 

height, extent, and timing of overland storm tide and wave 

dynamics across natural and manmade landscapes is critical 

for improved storm-surge modeling for flood-plain mapping 

and real-time forecasting. Improved mapping will lead to 

better planning, more effective early warning of storm-driven 

flooding, and strengthening of coastal resilience.

U.S. Geological Survey scientist obtaining water-surface 

elevation data and deploying a storm-tide sensor at Avery Point, 

Connecticut. Photograph by the U.S. Geological Survey.
24 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Table 2. Peak storm-tide elevations produced by Hurricane Sandy at 29 permanent stations in southeastern New York and southern 

Connecticut, with a comparison to other storms of record in the region.

[Permanent stations are shown in figure 12A. Peak storm tides for Hurricane Sandy occurred on October 29–30, 2012, for Hurricane Irene on August 28, 2011, 

for the unnamed storm of December 1992 on December 11, 1992, for Hurricane Donna on September 11–12, 1960, for Hurricane Carol on August 31, 1954, and 

for the unnamed hurricane of 1938 on September 21, 1938. Storm-tide elevations associated with the peak storm surge at National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) sites from National Ocean Service (2013). Peak storm-tide elevations in North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Dates in Greenwich 

Mean Time. USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; —, no value]

Map 

number

Station 

number

Station 

period of 

record

Historical 

peak water 

level (feet)

Estimated 

date of historical peak

Sandy peak 

storm-tide 

elevation 

(feet)

Irene peak 

storm-tide 

(feet)

December 

1992 peak 

storm-tide 

elevation 

(feet)

Donna peak 

storm-tide 

elevation 

(feet)

Carol peak 

storm-tide 

elevation 

(feet)

September 

1938 peak 

storm-tide 

elevation 

(feet)

1 8461490–

NOAA

1938–2013 8.74 09/21/1938 6.16 4.72 4.34 5.04 17.74 18.74

2 201190070 — — — 7.91 — — — — —

3 201193050 — — — 7.45 7.62 — — — —

4 201194750 — — — 6.98 5.97 — — — —

5 201194796 — — — 7.04 5.89 — — — —

6 8467150–

NOAA

1970–2013 9.30 10/29/2012 9.30 8.24 8.17 — 38.1 38.4

8 01208873 — — — 9.40 — — — — —

9 01209788–

USACE

1969–2013 9.99 10/29/2012 9.99 8.49 8.99 7.19 9.19 9.89

10 201302050 1993–2013 — — 9.69 9.46 19.5 — — —

12 01302250 2007–2013 10.31 10/29/2012 10.31 8.39 — — — —

13 01302600 2009–2013 9.87 10/29/2012 9.87 8.21 19.1 — — —

14 01302845 2007–2013 110.8 12/11/1992 10.06 8.04 110.8 — — —

15 01303000 1937–2012 10.26 09/21/1938 410.22 18.4 59.8 27.01 9.66 10.26

16 01303500 1950–2013 59.98 10/29/2012 59.98 9.14 19.5 26.35 9.67 —

17 01304057 2007–2013 9.35 10/29/2012 9.35 7.81 18.3 — — —

18 01304200 2012–2013 6.43 10/29/2012 6.43 — 14.5 — — —

19 01304562 2012–2013 18.0 12/11/1992 7.65 — 18.0 — — —

20 8510560–

NOAA

1947–2013 6.87 08/31/1954 5.55 3.82 4.24 3.54 6.87 —

21 01306499 1943–2013 56.06 10/29/2012 56.06 — 12.9 — — —

22 01309225 2002–2013 6.54 10/29/2012 6.54 4.08 — — — —

23 01310521 1999–2013 8.98 10/29/2012 8.98 6.22 66.1 — — —

24 01310740 1997–2013 8.97 10/29/2012 8.97 5.94 — — — —

25 01311143 2010–2013 9.77 10/29/2012 9.77 6.63 16.2 — — —

26 01311145 2002–2013 9.70 10/29/2012 9.70 6.33 16.6 — — —

27 01311850 2002–2013 10.55 10/29/2012 10.55 6.42 17.8 — — —

28 01311875 2002–2013 10.65 10/29/2012 10.65 6.48 17.8 — — —

29 8518750–

NOAA

1920–2013 11.28 10/29/2012 11.28 6.73 6.93 7.24 4.24 4.84

30 01376269 2010–2013 59.70 10/29/2012 59.70 6.56 — — — —

32 01374019 1991–2013 58.60 10/29/2012 58.60 6.69 — — — —

1

Peak storm-tide elevation outside period of record estimated from nearby high-water mark or local observation.

2

Historical peak water levels affected by riverine flooding.

3

Peak storm-tide elevation estimated from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1988).

4

Permanent streamflow monitoring station discontinued; peak elevation from temporary storm-tide sensor deployed at the station.

5

Measurement limit at permanent streamflow monitoring station was exceeded; peak elevation value from collocated temporary storm-tide sensor or highwater mark.

6

Peak storm-tide elevation estimated from information provided by Town of Hempstead Department of Conservation and Waterways.
Regional Stories 25

Massachusetts

Plum Island, so named for the wild Prunus maritima

Marshall (beach plum) shrub, which grows on its sandy dunes, 

is a barrier island in northeastern Massachusetts (fig. 15); the 

island encompasses the towns of Newburyport, Newbury, 

Rowley, and Ipswich, to the south of the mouth of the Merrimack River and extending south for about 11 miles. The island 

is bounded by the mouth of the Merrimack River to the north, 

Plum Island River to the northwest, Plum Island Sound to the 

southwest, and the mouth of the Ipswich River to the south; 

the Atlantic Ocean lies to the east. Plum Island Sound is a 

tidal estuary. The Village of Plum Island, a beach community 

in the towns of Newbury and Newburyport, is a typical New 

England seaside subdivision dating back to the 1920s; other 

undeveloped lands are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service as part of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge 

(fig. 15).

Plum Island, like other barrier islands in the northeastern United States, is a relatively recent geologic feature. The 

distribution of barrier islands in this region is directly related 

to coastal areas where Quaternary glacial deposits provide 

the supply of unconsolidated sand and gravel necessary for 

the formation of barrier islands. At the time of origin (more 

than 6,300 years before present) the sea was lower and the 

land was relatively higher in elevation than today. The island 

is continuously being shaped as a result of transgressive sea 

erosion, which is reworking and depositing the sediments 

along an unstable coast (McIntire and Morgan, 1962). Storms 

throughout the past several decades have resulted in substantial beach erosion, and in developed areas, property loss is a 

constant concern.

Barrier islands buffer the coastline from the erosive force 

of higher than normal tides and powerful wave action during 

storms. In the northeastern United States, tropical storms and 

nor’easters during winter and spring strike annually and cause 

much of the movement and reshaping of barrier islands. These 

storms mobilize and redeposit sediments and are an important 

component in the evolution of beach, dune, and sandbar form 

and position. Barrier islands are not static land masses; rather 

they are transient features that are reworked and reshaped 

storm by storm. During periods of sea-level rise and a warming climate, storm impacts typically are greater with greater 

inundation and beach erosion than at other times (Morris, 

2015). Barrier beaches tend to maintain themselves during 

periods of sea-level rise by “rolling-over” themselves, essentially migrating landward through processes of dune movement, storm wave overwash, and tidal inlet deposition (Giese, 

1997). Along the northern one-half of Plum Island, long-term 

(146-year) shoreline change rates are dominantly low-level 

erosional, averaging about –0.2 meter per year from 1850 

to 2000, but erosion rates since 1978 have averaged nearly 

–0.5 meter per year (Town of Newbury, 2010).

Impacts of Recent Storms on Plum Island

An early account by Captain John Smith described the 

area along the Massachusetts coast that would become Plum 

Island: “On the east is an Ile two or three leagues in length; 

the one halfe, plaine morish grasse fit for pasture, with many 

faire high groves of mulberrie trees gardens; and there is also 

Okes, Pines and other woods to make this place an excellent habitation, being a good and safe harbor” (Smith, 1616). 

A few colonial settlements dotted the island during the 17th 

and 18th centuries. With the industrial revolution and an 

increase in the standard of living during the late 19th and early 

20th centuries, Plum Island became a site for several hotels 

and a robust beachside community. Today [2016], Plum Island 

remains a destination and summer retreat for vacationers from 

nearby metropolitan cities; however, lots that were subdivided 

in the early 20th century and then set back from the beach are 

now closer to the edge of the shifting coastline.

Early land use on Plum Island was limited to pasture 

and grazing. A few farm houses were built far from the coast. 

During the late 19th and 20th century, northern parts of Plum 

Island were extensively developed as a seaside community 

atop the dune system. In the Roaring Twenties, Plum Island 

real estate boomed. The Plum Island Beach Company acquired 

a large parcel of land north of Turnpike Road and installed 

electrical power lines, paved Northern Boulevard, and 

surveyed and subdivided almost 12,000 lots on 1,400 acres 

(fig. 16; Fitzsimons, 2014). During the development process, 

dunes were flattened and vegetation removed from northern 

Plum Island. Lots were sold and cottages were constructed, 

some in locations more vulnerable than others. Because of the 

proximity to Boston and other metropolitan areas, demand for 

property on the island was and remains high.

Since early development, the beach has, in some areas, 

migrated closer and closer to the first row of homes. Many 

of the original cottages on the desirable beach-front lots have 

since been rebuilt in favor of grander structures. Buildings on 

these lots are the first to be destroyed when storms erode and 

reshape the island. Today [2016], many of the largest homes 

on Plum Island stand at the edge of the shifting island; these 

are places where the testimonies of long-time residents include 

memories of beach fronts hundreds of meters away from 

current shorelines and recollections of many powerful storms 
26 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW HAMPSHIRE

RHODE

ISLAND

Map area

Boston ATLANTIC OCEAN

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base from Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), 2015, 1:12,000

Massachusetts State Plane coordinate system

North American Datum of 1983 

PLUM

ISLAND

SOUND

Eagle Hill River

Ipswich

Rowley

Newburyport

Salisbury

Rowley

Ipswich Ipswich

A

TLANTIC

OCEAN

P L U M I S L A N D

Village of

Plum Island

Parker River

Ipswich River

Plum Island River

70°52’ 70°50’ 70°48’ 70°46’

42°48’

42°46’

42°44’

42°42’

EXPLANATION

Parker River National 

Wildlife Refuge

Town boundary

Merrimack River

1

1A

U.S. Geological Survey gage 01100870

PLUM ISLAND TURNPIKE

NORTHERN BOULEVARDNORTHERN BOULEVARD

Rowley River

1A

Figure 15. The barrier Plum Island, which lies in the tidal estuary of Plum Island Sound in Massachusetts, is 

reworked and reshaped storm by storm.
Regional Stories 27

Figure 16. In the Roaring Twenties, development 

on Plum Island boomed and as many as 

12,000 houses were built on about 1,400 acres.

over the years. In some places, the shoreline has encroached 

to the foundations and supports of several houses and some 

houses have been destroyed as the beach continues to migrate. 

Dozens of houses in the most vulnerable locations were damaged or destroyed by a string of powerful storms during winter 

2013, and emergency managers and residents of the island 

continue to keep a watchful eye on each approaching storm. 

Houses that were made uninhabitable during the winter storms 

of 2013 are shown in figure 17.

Foundation-supported structures built on barrier islands 

will eventually be affected as beach fronts shift position. 

Additionally, roads, landscaping, and other manmade features 

threaten dune rebuilding and may exacerbate future storm 

impacts. For example, sea walls and other similar fortifications 

designed to stabilize land and protect buildings at the edge 

of the beach may actually exacerbate shoreline erosion by 

deflecting waves to other unfortified locations.

A B

C D

Figure 17. Many houses on Plum Island, Massachusetts, were undermined by the storms of winter 2013. Photographs by Sergeant 

Patty Fisher, Newburyport [Mass.], Police Department.
28 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Storm Surge and Real-Time Tide Monitoring

The USGS has recorded storm surge and tide height at 

the northern end of Plum Island and surrounding locations 

since Hurricane Earl in 2010. During Hurricane Irene in 

2011, the USGS expanded tidal monitoring with a network of 

storm-surge sensors along the southern New England coast, 

and during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, storm-surge sensors and 

real-time data collection on tide height and weather conditions 

were measured and available on the Internet from temporary 

rapid-deployment gages that were installed before the storm. 

In 2014, the USGS installed the SWaTH network along the 

Atlantic coast in the northeastern United States with 163 storm 

surge-sensors and rapid-deployment gages in New England. 

By 2015, six permanent real-time tide monitoring stations 

had been installed to help inform the public and local officials 

about current tidal, flow, and weather conditions. An example 

of data from one of these six new gages and a photograph of 

the gage are shown in figure 18.

Additionally, during large storm events a temporary 

rapid-deployment gage will be deployed to the west of Plum 

Island at Parker River in Newbury, along with a widely 

dispersed network of storm-surge and wave height recorders, 

all part of the USGS SWaTH network. During the blizzard of 

January 2015, SWaTH storm-surge sensors were deployed at 

six sites along the coast of eastern Massachusetts, including 

Plum Island (Massey and Verdi, 2015). These data collection platforms will help warn of changing weather and tide 

conditions during a storm in real time and help record the data 

necessary to characterize storm events of varying magnitudes 

for a more thorough understanding of the severity of impacts 

to coastal areas.

U.S. Geological Survey 01100870 Merrimack River 

at Newburyport, Massachusetts

70

68

62

64

66

Gage height, in feet

Date and year

April 24,

2015

April 25,

2015

April 26,

2015

April 27,

2015

April 28,

2015

April 29,

2015

April 30,

2015

May 1,

2015

Figure 18. Gages such as the U.S. Geological Survey gage at 

the U.S. Route 1A bridge on the Merrimack River at Newburyport, 

Massachusetts (station 01100870), collect information on water 

levels, which can be used to evaluate the storm surge at that 

location during large storms. Photograph by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Wetlands at Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on 

Plum Island, Massachusetts. Photograph courtesy of 

Kelly Fike, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Forecasting, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Future 29

Forecasting, Monitoring, and Reporting for the Future

Working With Partners

The USGS has a long history of working with other Federal, tribal, State, and local governments, regional planning districts, and other natural resource organizations to provide useful 

environmental data. By interacting with these groups and understanding the needs and applications of each group, the USGS ensures its data and science remain relevant and useful to the 

community. The following are examples that demonstrate cooperation between the USGS and 

Federal, State, and local agencies in response to impacts of Hurricanes Irene and Sandy.

As Hurricane Irene raced towards the North Carolina coast in August 2011, the USGS 

North Carolina Water Science Center deployed a dense network of storm surge monitors along 

the coast. At the same time, the North Carolina Sea Grant program was doing the same thing. 

After the event, the sensors were retrieved and the data were processed, and the USGS agreed 

to host the data from the State-funded program on the USGS website at http://water.usgs.gov/

floods/events/2011/irene/. The data were also published along with other USGS data in McCallum and others (2012b). Placing all the data in one location online enabled quick and easy 

access for the public.

In Virginia, the USGS has worked with the University of Virginia (UVA) Long-Term Ecological Research Laboratory to help facilitate serving their continuous tide monitor data to the 

National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) web page. 

Originally, the USGS had been approached by local county authorities who were interested in 

installing a tide gage in the same community where the UVA gage is located. At that time, the 

county was unaware of the presence of the UVA gage because the data from the UVA gage were 

not available through AHPS. In response, the USGS first made the county aware of the UVA 

gage and then introduced UVA personnel to NWS personnel and helped coordinate efforts to 

ensure the UVA data were served on the AHPS page. This coordination effort also provided an 

opportunity for the USGS to work directly with the county to help place their new county gage 

in a different location to ensure a better network footprint was provided for the community. As 

a result of these efforts, more data are now [2016] being served to the AHPS network, and the 

relationship between the USGS and UVA has been strengthened.

In New Jersey, the USGS began working with local cooperators after the damaging 

nor’easter of 1992 to build a coastal tide telemetry network to provide tidal elevation data for 

coastal communities. This network of tide gages was built using mostly existing infrastructure 

and provided invaluable data during and after Hurricane Sandy despite being seriously damaged by the storm.

Leveraging SWaTH at the Federal, State, and Local Levels—The development and implementation of SWaTH was a collaborative effort between the USGS and many Federal, State, 

and local agencies that needed enhanced access to coastal flood data. Personnel from various 

USGS water science centers worked with personnel from local and State agencies to identify 

potential sites and identify appropriate equipment and data delivery formats and methods. The 

SWaTH network was a result of both supplemental funding from Congress as well as cooperative funding from the States; frequently, the funding for SWaTH enabled for the construction 

and instrumentation of a site and the local agencies typically agreed to provide for long-term 

operation and maintenance.

The resulting SWaTH network and the data from the network have had a positive effect on 

local capabilities. In New Jersey, for example, SWaTH has strengthened and greatly improved 

the New Jersey Tide Telemetry System (NJTTS) to make it a more resilient network for future 

storms. The USGS New Jersey Water Science Center has had a long-standing relationship with 

FEMA Region II for flood documentation and mitigation support. The combined support from 

the SWaTH network and the NJTTS has helped to improve FEMA’s situational awareness 

and has provided various State and local emergency managers with a more reliable and robust 

network of tide gages and flood data for purposes of planning and preparing for the next major 

A global positioning system 

used to survey storm-tide 

elevation at HWM-NJ-HUD-108 

at Liberty State Park in Jersey 

City, New Jersey, after Hurricane Sandy. Photograph by 

Crystal Hammer, U.S. Geological Survey.
30 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

storm. SWaTH provided the opportunity for the USGS to add secondary sensors (backup data 

collection equipment) at many tide gages and facilitate a conversation with the NOAA National 

Ocean Service (NOS) to include some of the NJTTS gages into their tidal gage network. 

SWaTH publications and informational material have enriched USGS conversations with State 

and local emergency managers and have informed the general public about USGS data, the 

NJTTS, and flood risk in general.

In New York, SWaTH provided an opportunity to revisit a two-decades-old proposal 

developed jointly by the USGS and the NWS for a regional network of flood-warning tide 

gages. Although about one-half of the proposed network of 26 tide gages had been installed 

during the intervening years, several priority sites for the mitigation of flood hazards remained 

without gages. These priority ungaged sites and the counties or municipalities in which they are 

located became the focus of a collaborative outreach effort by the USGS and the NWS. SWaTH 

included installation of new tide gages at priority sites with long-term agreements with State 

and local agencies to fund gage operation and maintenance expenses. Ultimately, the effort was 

successful in arranging for the establishment of three new flood-warning tide gages in cooperation with county and municipal offices of emergency management. A parallel effort in cooperation with the National Park Service succeeded in arranging for the establishment of a fourth tide 

gage with a colocated weather station within the Fire Island National Seashore and Wilderness 

(fig. 19).

In New England, SWaTH provided an opportunity for the USGS to reach out to stakeholders and offer more data that would be mutually beneficial. For example, SWaTH provided for 

the installation of network sites, and the tribal oyster industry agreed to fund the operation and 

maintenance of a new continuous tide gage. The water-level and meteorological data from this 

gage will assist the tribal oyster industry in making more informed decisions regarding their 

operations and will also provide data that are publically available for others in the community 

to use. In addition to this tide gage, 12 others were installed across New England.

These examples demonstrate how the USGS works with partners around the country. 

Many USGS data-collection activities are funded cooperatively with partnering agencies. 

Often, these same stakeholders and communities who have a financial role in the datacollection activity become passionate about the data and how they can use these data to better 

protect their coastal communities from future storm impacts.

73°40’ 73°20’ 73° 72°40' 72°20’ 72°

40°50’

40°40’

0 10 20 30 MILES

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

NEW YORK

Long

Island

Map area

Long Island

FIRE ISLAND NATIONAL 

SEASHORE AND WILDERNESS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, various scales, variously dated

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 18N

North American Datum of 1983

NEW YORK

ATLANTIC OCEAN

495

495

Figure 19. Fire Island National Seashore and Wilderness on Fire Island, New York, has long been affected by storms and 

hurricanes.
Summary 31

SWaTH and Real-Time Networks

Real-time data are the essential driver of forecasting models; without real-time data, 

forecasting models are simply unreliable. When dealing with coastal floods, water-level and 

meteorological (mostly wind speed and direction) data are of the utmost importance; these 

events are also the most difficult to predict, especially on small scales, without using real data 

on the ground.

Having a thorough understanding of this dilemma, the USGS worked with partners, new 

and old, to enhance the existing interagency network of tide-monitoring locations along the 

Atlantic coast. As a result, an extensive network of more than 900 locations has been added 

to the existing monitoring network. The SWaTH network is made up of a combination of 

non-real-time sensors, temporary real-time gages, and permanent, long-term real-time stations.

With 32 new permanent real-time sites being installed across the SWaTH network as well 

as the hardening of existing permanent real-time sites, the amount of data that will be available 

to the forecasting and emergency management agencies and the public before, during, and after 

storms far surpasses the amount or the reliability of any data that were available in the past. The 

temporary real-time gages also will provide a better picture of what is actually happening at 

predetermined locations and throughout the network during an actual storm event. These data 

will assist the local emergency management community in making decisions regarding road 

closures, evacuations, and recovery operations.

The non-real-time monitor network also has been bolstered substantially in the SWaTH 

network. With more than 900 locations identified, presurveyed, and with infrastructure already 

in place, the non-real-time monitor network will provide even more data than before. These 

data can contribute to documenting where flooding occurred and to what extent; however, with 

the addition of high-resolution sensors, the data also provide detailed datasets of wave action 

and attenuation throughout the event.

Partnerships have been forged, many from scratch, in these coastal communities. Not 

only will more data be available in real-time, the preinstalled and surveyed SWaTH network 

infrastructure will enable USGS field crews to work more efficiently and productively 

while increasing their safety. The SWaTH network can provide the high-resolution datasets 

that are needed for the Nation to improve our ability to plan for, predict, and recover from 

coastal-storm impacts.

Summary

After Hurricane Sandy made landfall along the northeastern Atlantic coast of the United 

States on October 29, 2012, the USGS carried out scientific investigations to assist with protecting coastal communities and resources in the future. The work included development and 

implementation of the Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics (SWaTH) network consisting of 

more than 900 monitoring stations in order to greatly improve the collection and timely dissemination of information related to storm surge and coastal flooding. SWaTH provides a significant enhancement of USGS data-collection capabilities in the region impacted by Hurricane 

Sandy and represents a new strategy for observing and monitoring coastal storms that should 

result in improved understanding, prediction, and warning of storm-surge impacts.

Emergency management officials and the public will be able to use the data and the 

information provided by storm-surge forecasts driven by these newly available data to make 

real-time decisions on evacuation plans and the protection of property. As the data are collected 

and accumulated, they will feed and inform new Federal Emergency Management Agency 

floodplain maps, land-use decisions, and building codes, ultimately leading to more disasterresilient coastal communities.

During hurricanes, the 

U.S. Geological Survey deploys 

storm-surge monitoring 

instruments along the coasts, 

sounds, and bays in areas 

predicted to be impacted to 

gage how high hurricanes 

push water in rivers, bays, 

and other areas. The sensors 

are important to forecasting 

future storms and assessing 

hurricane damage. They are 

strapped to structures expected to survive the storm, such 

as bridge piers, light poles, and 

fire hydrants. This storm surge 

sensor has been deployed on 

the Pamlico Sound in Buxton, 

North Carolina. Photograph by 

Kristen McSwain, U.S. Geological Survey.
32 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

Acknowledgments

The authors of this circular gratefully acknowledge the technical reviews and advisement 

of USGS personnel Megan Poff and Jeremy White whose contributions enhanced the scientific 

merit of this report.

References Cited

Avila, L.A., and Cangialosi, John, 2011, Hurricane Irene (AL092011) 21–28 August 2011: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tropical cyclone report, 45 p., accessed 

March 28, 2015, at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092011_Irene.pdf.

Bales, J.D., Oblinger, C.J., and Sallenger, A.H., Jr., 2000, Two months of flooding in eastern 

North Carolina, September-October 1999: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4903, 47 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

wri004093.]

Banks, W.S.L., Masterson, J.P., and Johnson, C.D., 2012, Well network installation and hydrogeologic data collection, Assateague Island National Seashore, Worcester County, Maryland, 

2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5079, 20 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20125079.]

Buxton, H.T., Andersen, M.E., Focazio, M.J., Haines, J.W., Hainly, R.A., Hippe, D.J., and 

Sugarbaker, L.J., 2013, Meeting the science needs of the nation in the wake of Hurricane 

Sandy—A U.S. Geological Survey science plan for support of restoration and recovery: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1390, 26 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/cir1390.]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012, Deaths associated with Hurricane Sandy, 

October-November 2012: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, v. 62, no. 20, p. 393–397, accessed June 17, 2015, at http://www.cdc.gov/

mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6220a1.htm.

Davis, W.R., 1954, Hurricanes of 1954: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monthly weather report, December, p. 370–373. [Also available at 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/mwr_pdf/1954.pdf.]

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 2016, The Delaware River—A little known natural treasure: Delaware Riverkeeper Network web page accessed April 4, 2016, at 

http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/delaware-river/.

East, J.W., Turco, M.J., and Mason, R.R., Jr., 2008, Monitoring inland storm surge and flooding 

from Hurricane Ike in Texas and Louisiana, September 2008: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2008–1365, 34 p., data. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

ofr20081365.]

Eggleston, Jack, and Pope, Jason, 2013, Land subsidence and relative sea-level rise in the 

southern Chesapeake Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1392, 30 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1392.]

Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014, Delaware River: Encyclopedia Britannica web page, accessed 

April 4, 2016, at http://www.britannica.com/place/Delaware-River.
References Cited 33

Fanelli, Colleen, Fanelli, Paul, and Wolcott, David, 2013, Hurricane Sandy: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration water level and meteorological data 

report, 62 p. [Also available at https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/

Hurricane_Sandy_2012_Water_Level_and_Meteorological_Data_Report.pdf.]

Fitzsimons, Gray, 2014, History research at Newbury public library: Plum Island Research 

Project web page, accessed November 30, 2015, at http://www.plumislandresearch.org/

media-library/history-of-change-in-lower-merrimack-valley/history-research-newburyportpublic-library.

Giese, G.S., 1997, Potential impacts of sea-level rise in Massachusetts, in New England 

Regional Climate Change Impacts Workshop, Durham, N.H., September 3–5, 1997, summary report: Durham, N.H., University of New Hampshire, p. 114–116.

Giese, G.S., Wilder, H.B., and Parker, G.G., 1985, Hydrology or major estuaries and sounds of 

North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2221, 108 p., 1 pl. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2221.]

Graham, Steve, and Riebeek, Holli, 2015, Hurricanes—The greatest storms on Earth: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration web page accessed April 10, 2015, at 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Hurricanes/.

Hoppe, H.L., 2007, New Jersey tide telemetry system: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 

2007–3064, 4 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20073064.]

Horton, Radley, Little, Christopher, Gornitz, Vivien, Bader, Daniel, and Oppenheimer, Michael, 

2015, New York City Panel on Climate Change; 2015 report—Chapter 2—Sea level rise and 

coastal storms: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 1336, p. 36–44. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12593.]

Massey, A.J., and Verdi, R.J., 2015, Storm tide monitoring during the blizzard of January 26–28, 2015, in eastern Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2015–1081, 8 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151081.]

McCallum, B.E., McGee, B.D., Kimbrow, D.R., Runner, M.S., Painter, J.A., Frantz, E.R., and 

Gotvald, A.J., 2012a, Monitoring storm tide and flooding from Hurricane Isaac along the gulf 

coast of the United States, August 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–

1263, 24 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20121263.]

McCallum, B.E., Painter, J.A., and Frantz, E.R., 2012b, Monitoring inland storm tide and 

flooding from Hurricane Irene along the Atlantic coast of the United States, August 

2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1022, 28 p. [Also available at 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20121022.]

McCallum, B.E., Wicklein, S.M., Reiser, R.G., Busciolano, Ronald, Morrison, Jonathan, 

Verdi, R.J., Painter, J.A., Frantz, E.R., and Gotvald, A.J., 2013, Monitoring storm tide 

and flooding from Hurricane Sandy along the Atlantic coast of the United States, October 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1043, 42 p. [Also available at 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20131043.]

McGee, B.D., Goree, B.B., Tollett, R.W., and Mason, R.R., Jr., 2008, Monitoring inland storm 

surge and flooding from Hurricane Gustav in Louisiana, September 2008: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2008–1373, accessed October 23, 2015, at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr20081373.

McGee, B.D., Goree, B.B., Tollett, R.W., Woodward, B.K., and Kress, W.H., 2006, Hurricane Rita surge data, southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas, September to 

November 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 220, accessed October 23, 2015, at 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds220.]
34 The Surge, Wave, and Tide Hydrodynamics Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery

McGee, B.D., Tollett, R.W., and Goree, B.B, 2007, Monitoring Hurricane Rita inland storm 

surge, chap. 7J of Farris, G.S., Smith, G.J., Crane, M.P., Demas, C.R., Robbins, L.L., and 

Lavoie, D.L., eds., Science and the storms—The USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005: 

U.S. Geological Circular 1306, p. 257–263. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/cir1306.]

McIntire, W.G., and Morgan, J.P., 1962, Recent geomorphic history of Plum Island, Massachusetts, and adjacent coasts, part A of Atlantic coastal studies: Baton Rouge, La., Louisiana 

State University Coastal Studies Institute Technical Report 19, 58 p. [Also available at 

http://www.plumislandresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/McIntire-and-Morgan-1964.

pdf.]

Morris, Mike, 2015, Climate change, sea level rise, and barrier island retreat: Plum Island Erosion web page, accessed November 30, 2015, at http://www.plumislanderosion.com/2013-

03-05-13-05-49/climate-change-sea-level-rise-barrier-island-retreat.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011, Irene by the numbers: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, [n.p.], accessed March 28, 2015, at http://www.noaa.

gov/images/Hurricane%20Irene%20by%20the%20Numbers%20-%20Factoids_V4_083111.

pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013, Hurricane/post-tropical cyclone 

Sandy, October 22–29, 2012: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration service 

assessment, 10 p. [Also available at http://www.weather.gov/media/publications/assessments/

Sandy13.pdf.]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015a, Top ten highest water levels for 

long-term stations, January 2015: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, [n.p.], 

accessed June 16, 2015, at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/est/Top10_form_ft.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015b, Tropical cyclone climatology: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration web page, accessed March 28, 2015, at 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/.

New York State Governor’s Office, 2012, Governor Cuomo holds meeting with New York’s 

congressional delegation, Mayor Bloomberg and regional county executives to review damage assessment for the state in the wake of Hurricane Sandy: New York State Governor’s 

Office press release, accessed November 26, 2012, at http://www.governor.ny.gov/news/

governor-cuomo-holds-meeting-new-yorks-congressional-delegation-mayor-bloomberg-andregional.

Phillips, S.W., 2001, The U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay science program: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2001–125, 4 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/fs12501.]

Schubert, C.E., and Busciolano, Ronald, 1994, Peak storm-tide elevations produced by the 

December 1992 storm along the coast of Long Island, New York, with historical peak stormtide elevations [abs.], in Association of Long Island Geologists, First Conference on Geology 

of Long Island and Metropolitan New York, Programs with Abstracts, State University of 

New York at Stony Brook, N.Y., April 23, 1994: Stony Brook, N.Y., State University of New 

York at Stony Brook, p. 130–136.

Smith, C.F., Cordova, J.T., and Wiele, S.M., 2010, The continuous slope-area method for 

computing event hydrographs: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2010–5241, 37 p.

Smith, John, 1616, A description of New England, in Royster, Paul, ed., An online electronic 

text edition: University of Nebraska-Lincoln DigitalCommons, 76 p., accessed November 30, 

2015, at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=etas.
References Cited 35

Soderqvist, L.E., and Michael, J.B., 2007 Monitoring the storm tide of Hurricane Wilma in 

southwestern Florida, October 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 294, 16 p., appendix, accessed October 24, 2015, at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds294.]

Town of Newbury [Mass.], 2010, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Beach 

Scraping Workgroup report, May 17, 2010: Town of Newbury web page, accessed November 30, 2015, at http://www.townofnewbury.org/pages/EOEEA%20Beach%20Scraping%20

Workgroup%20Report.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, [n.d.], Stamford hurricane protection barrier: U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers web page, accessed June 17, 2015, at http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/

Civil-Works/Flood-Risk-Management/Connecticut/Stamford-Hurricane-Barrier/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, Tidal flood profiles—New England coastline: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 29 pls., accessed June 18, 2015, at http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/

Portals/74/docs/regulatory/Forms/TidalFloodProfiles.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Interactive population map: U.S. Census Bureau United States 

2010 Census web page, accessed January 28, 2015, at http://www.census.gov/2010census/

popmap/.

U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016, Naval Station Norfolk: U.S. Department of the 

Navy Commander, Navy Installations Command web page, accessed May 8, 2016, at 

http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrma/installations/ns_norfolk.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, USGS flood information: U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources of the United States website, accessed April 4, 2016, at https://water.usgs.gov/

floods/events/2012/sandy/sandymapper.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, Hurricanes and extreme storms—Hurricane Irene: U.S. Geological Survey website, accessed March 28, 2015, at http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/irene/.

For more information concerning this report, contact: 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Office of Surface Water 

415 National Center 

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive 

Reston, VA 20192

or visit our website at: 

https://water.usgs.gov/osw/

Publishing support provided by the Pembroke and 

Rolla Publishing Service Centers

Editing by Anna N. Glover and Teresa D. Losano

Design and typography by Christine T. Mendelsohn 

and Suzanne C. Roberts
Verdi and others—The SWaTH Network—Storm-Response Monitoring, Data Collection, and Data Delivery—Circular 1431

ISSN 1067-084X (print)

ISSN 2330-5703 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1431 Printed on recycled paper