Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20045030

Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Small Urban Streams in South Carolina, 2001

Abstract

The magnitude and frequency of floods at 20 streamflowgaging stations on small, unregulated urban streams in or near South Carolina were estimated by fitting the measured wateryear peak flows to a log-Pearson Type-III distribution. The period of record (through September 30, 2001) for the measured water-year peak flows ranged from 11 to 25 years with a mean and median length of 16 years. The drainage areas of the streamflow-gaging stations ranged from 0.18 to 41 square miles. Based on the flood-frequency estimates from the 20 streamflow-gaging stations (13 in South Carolina; 4 in North Carolina; and 3 in Georgia), generalized least-squares regression was used to develop regional regression equations. These equations can be used to estimate the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500-year recurrence-interval flows for small urban streams in the Piedmont, upper Coastal Plain, and lower Coastal Plain physiographic provinces of South Carolina. The most significant explanatory variables from this analysis were mainchannel length, percent impervious area, and basin development factor. Mean standard errors of prediction for the regression equations ranged from -25 to 33 percent for the 10-year recurrence-interval flows and from -35 to 54 percent for the 100-year recurrence-interval flows. The U.S. Geological Survey has developed a Geographic Information System application called StreamStats that makes the process of computing streamflow statistics at ungaged sites faster and more consistent than manual methods. This application was developed in the Massachusetts District and ongoing work is being done in other districts to develop a similar application using streamflow statistics relative to those respective States. Considering the future possibility of implementing StreamStats in South Carolina, an alternative set of regional regression equations was developed using only main channel length and impervious area. This was done because no digital coverages are currently available for basin development factor and, therefore, it could not be included in the StreamStats application. The average mean standard error of prediction for the alternative equations was 2 to 5 percent larger than the standard errors for the equations that contained basin development factor. For the urban streamflow-gaging stations in South Carolina, measured water-year peak flows were compared with those from an earlier urban flood-frequency investigation. The peak flows from the earlier investigation were computed using a rainfall-runoff model. At many of the sites, graphical comparisons indicated that the variance of the measured data was much less than the variance of the simulated data. Several statistical tests were applied to compare the variances and the means of the measured and simulated data for each site. The results indicated that the variances were significantly different for 11 of the 13 South Carolina streamflow-gaging stations. For one streamflow-gaging station, the test for normality, which is one of the assumptions of the data when comparing variances, indicated that neither the measured data nor the simulated data were distributed normally; therefore, the test for differences in the variances was not used for that streamflow-gaging station. Another statistical test was used to test for statistically significant differences in the means of the measured and simulated data. The results indicated that for 5 of the 13 urban streamflowgaging stations in South Carolina there was a statistically significant difference in the means of the two data sets. For comparison purposes and to test the hypothesis that there may have been climatic differences between the period in which the measured peak-flow data were measured and the period for which historic rainfall data were used to compute the simulated peak flows, 16 rural streamflow-gaging stations with long-term records were reviewed using similar techniques as those used for the measured an

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.0346° to 35.215402° latitude; -83.353238° to -78.541087° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Toby D. Feaster, Wladimir B. Guimaraes. 2004. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Small Urban Streams in South Carolina, 2001. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20045030

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Karst hydrologic processes in carbonate fensters of the western Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee, 2017–18

The geology of the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina is dominated by metamorphic strata. Along the western extent of the range, however, several carbonate fensters expose the Ordovician Jonesboro Limestone along the western edge of the Great Smoky Fault. The fensters (Cades Cove, Tuckaleechee Cove, and Wear Cove) create opportunities for allogenic recharge at the contact between the surrounding, relatively insoluble, strata and the underlying soluble formations, resulting in the development of karst systems. Karst environments have a high degree of connectivity between surface streams and groundwater systems; thus, karst aquifers are inherently vulnerable to contamination from surface activities. Karst environments also provide a specific environment for sensitive biota. Protection of the unique resources of karst environments requires an understanding of the behavior of karst aquifers, knowledge of karst recharge areas, and the mapping of groundwater flow paths. A study began in 2017 to characterize the hydrologic behavior of the karst systems in Great Smoky Mountains National Park through hydrologic monitoring, dye tracing, and seepage investigations. Hydrologic monitoring equipment was installed at several karst hydrogeologic features: two in-cave sites, two major springs, Abrams Creek in Cades Cove, and a karst depression wetland. Dye tracing was conducted to determine resurgences for the cave systems, to delineate spring recharge areas, and to estimate karst groundwater velocities. Seepage investigations along Abrams Creek helped determine if streams were sinking into the Jonesboro Limestone, either at the contact with insoluble strata or as streams flowed across the carbonate fenster. Study results indicate considerable differences in groundwater behavior between the conduit-dominated flow systems in Tuckaleechee Cove compared to the lower-gradient, colluvium-covered karst systems in Cades Cove. Study results also indicate that contaminants in the area of Bull sink and Whiteoak Sink could be rapidly transported through karst groundwater towards springs in Tuckaleechee Cove. Karst resources in Cades Cove are most likely to be affected by local events or activities taking place within the cove itself or in upper Abrams Creek upstream of the Great Smoky Fault. This study provides information on the vulnerability and uniqueness of the karst systems in the western Great Smoky Mountains, which are characterized by complex geology, high-gradient subterranean streams, deep caves, and carbonate fensters.

Tennessee↗

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Michigan↗

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗