Regression models of discharge and mean velocity associated with near-median streamflow conditions in Texas: utility of the U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement database

William H. Asquith

doi:10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000715

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70071871

Regression models of discharge and mean velocity associated with near-median streamflow conditions in Texas: utility of the U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement database

William H. Asquith

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A database containing more than 16,300 discharge values and ancillary hydraulic attributes was assembled from summaries of discharge measurement records for 391 USGS streamflow-gauging stations (streamgauges) in Texas. Each discharge is between the 40th- and 60th-percentile daily mean streamflow as determined by period-of-record, streamgauge-specific, flow-duration curves. Each discharge therefore is assumed to represent a discharge measurement made for near-median streamflow conditions, and such conditions are conceptualized as representative of midrange to baseflow conditions in much of the state. The hydraulic attributes of each discharge measurement included concomitant cross-section flow area, water-surface top width, and reported mean velocity. Two regression equations are presented: (1) an expression for discharge and (2) an expression for mean velocity, both as functions of selected hydraulic attributes and watershed characteristics. Specifically, the discharge equation uses cross-sectional area, water-surface top width, contributing drainage area of the watershed, and mean annual precipitation of the location; the equation has an adjusted R-squared of approximately 0.95 and residual standard error of approximately 0.23 base-10 logarithm (cubic meters per second). The mean velocity equation uses discharge, water-surface top width, contributing drainage area, and mean annual precipitation; the equation has an adjusted R-squared of approximately 0.50 and residual standard error of approximately 0.087 third root (meters per second). Residual plots from both equations indicate that reliable estimates of discharge and mean velocity at ungauged stream sites are possible. Further, the relation between contributing drainage area and main-channel slope (a measure of whole-watershed slope) is depicted to aid analyst judgment of equation applicability for ungauged sites. Example applications and computations are provided and discussed within a real-world, discharge-measurement scenario, and an illustration of the development of a preliminary stage-discharge relation using the discharge equation is given.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 28.17° to 36.5° latitude; -102.69° to -93.52° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

William H. Asquith. 2014. Regression models of discharge and mean velocity associated with near-median streamflow conditions in Texas: utility of the U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement database. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000715

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Benchmark dataset of historical annual peak floods classified by causal mechanisms for select US river basins

Considering the causal mechanisms of floods can improve estimates of flood recurrence intervals given that certain flood types can be associated with higher magnitude and more damaging floods. However, few verified datasets of flood types are available to validate the semiautomated and automated classification algorithms needed to apply flood-typing across large hydrologically diverse regions. To address this gap, a benchmark dataset of manually classified flood types was compiled for 1,763 annual maximum flood peaks from 18 stream gauges in six different river basins across the conterminous United States from 1851 to 2022. Within each basin, three representative stream gauges were selected for manual flood typing. A flexible classification framework is introduced that facilitates flood typing across hydrologically diverse regions and accommodates unique combinations of weather and antecedent watershed conditions specific to each region. Floods were manually typed by domain experts using multiple lines of evidence to identify a primary surface water input of each flood (rainfall, snowmelt, or both) and, if relevant, associated storm type and secondary causal mechanisms characterizing antecedent watershed conditions. Across all the study basins, 49% of historical annual maximum flood peaks were attributable to rainfall, 28% to snowmelt, 22% to mixed precipitation, and 1% could not be assigned to a mechanism due to missing or incomplete data. The proposed flood-typing schema supports varying levels of flood typing specificity required for mixed population flood-frequency analysis, flood-type-specific design hydrographs, water quality response studies, and additional applications. This detailed, manually determined benchmark dataset serves as a resource that can be used developing and validating automated or machine learning-based algorithms capable of operationalizing expanded flood peak information.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2025

Validation of gridded precipitation datasets for flood-typing in select conterminous U.S. basins

Gridded precipitation datasets are required for flood-typing historical annual peak streamflow events in basins across the Conterminous United States. Selected gridded precipitation datasets were validated over the period 1981–2013 through comparisons with gage data from the NOAA Global Historical Climatology Network daily (GHCNd). The ability of each gridded dataset to capture the spatiotemporal characteristics of daily precipitation, including multi-day extremes over six selected regions, was assessed using the Kling-Gupta Efficiency metric and its component statistics. Overall, the Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model and Livneh-unsplit were found to best match the spatiotemporal variability of the GHCNd precipitation data, including extremes. The Analysis of Record for Calibration was found to be the third best-performing dataset in most regions except in the western U.S. The performance of reanalysis datasets evaluated appears to be poor compared to gage-based datasets. The reanalysis datasets might not be able to skillfully capture precipitation amounts at the correct location and time. Gage- and radar-based datasets were found to have relatively small biases (within +/-10% on an annual basis), while reanalysis datasets were found to have larger positive apparent biases, especially in winter and spring in most regions. It is possible that the apparent overestimation of winter and spring precipitation in the reanalysis datasets might reflect snow undercatch at gages especially in the central U.S. An overall deterioration of performance for correlation and/or variability was also observed for the summer season compared to other seasons in the reanalysis datasets. Various precipitation datasets might need to be used for flood-typing during different periods from the late 19th century to present. Datasets from different sources have different biases and errors and might have to be homogenized using downscaling and bias-adjustment methods. Alternatively, precipitation thresholds used in some flood-typing schemes might have to be adjusted as a function of time.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2024

Application of a workflow to determine the feasibility of using simulated streamflow for estimation of streamflow frequency statistics

Streamflow records from hydrologic models are attractive for use in operational hydrology, such as a streamflow frequency analysis. The amount of bias inherent to simulated streamflow from hydrologic models is often unknown, but it is likely present in derivative products. Therefore, a workflow may help determine where streamflow frequency analysis is credibly feasible from simulated streamflow and allow for a systematic way to assess and correct for bias. The proposed workflow consists of hydrologically matching model output locations with streamflow-gauging station (stream gauge) locations, computing the desired statistic from the simulated and observed streamflow record, computing the differences between the simulated and observed statistic (i.e., the bias), and constructing generalized additive models (GAMs) from the differences to determine bias corrections. The US Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council and the US Environmental Protection Agency, is testing the proposed workflow on a low-streamflow frequency (LFF) analysis. Simulated streamflows for the LFF analysis were sourced from a machine-learning model that estimated daily streamflow at Level-12 hydrologic unit code (HUC12) pour points (outlets) in the southern and southeastern US for 1950–2010. The comparison data set consists of 497 stream gauges that are coincident with a HUC12 outlet. The simulated LFF statistics were being overestimated on average; thus, there are limits to using simulated streamflow for frequency analysis. The magnitude of the overprediction generally increases where no-flow conditions are common. Bias corrections determined from the GAMs decreased the magnitude of bias observed in the simulated LFF statistics on average, suggesting it is feasible to expand the operational use of simulated streamflows to frequency analyses with the proposed workflow. The proposed workflow could be advantageous to practitioners interested in leveraging existing and future simulated streamflow data sets with regional and or global coverage.

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering↗