Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

David A. Eash

doi:10.3133/sir20145085

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20145085

Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012

David A. Eash

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This report is part of an ongoing program that is publishing flood profiles of streams in Iowa. The program is managed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Highway Research Board (Project HR-140). Information from flood profiles is used by engineers to analyze and design bridges, culverts, and roadways. This report summarizes 47 U.S. Geological Survey flood-profile reports that were published for streams in Iowa during a 50-year period from 1963 to 2012. Flood events profiled in the reports range from 1903 to 2010. Streams in Iowa that have been selected for the preparation of flood-profile reports typically have drainage areas of 100 square miles or greater, and the documented flood events have annual exceedance probabilities of less than 2 to 4 percent. This report summarizes flood-profile measurements, changes in flood-profile report content throughout the years, streams that were profiled in the reports, the occurrence of flood events profiled, and annual exceedance-probability estimates of observed flood events. To develop flood profiles for selected flood events for selected stream reaches, the U.S. Geological Survey measured high-water marks and river miles at selected locations. A total of 94 stream reaches have been profiled in U.S. Geological Survey flood-profile reports. Three rivers in Iowa have been profiled along the same stream reach for five different flood events and six rivers in Iowa have been profiled along the same stream reach for four different flood events. Floods were profiled for June flood events for 18 different years, followed by July flood events for 13 years, May flood events for 11 years, and April flood events for 9 years. Most of the flood-profile reports include estimates of annual exceedance probabilities of observed flood events at streamgages located along profiled stream reaches. Comparisons of 179 historic and updated annual exceedance-probability estimates indicate few differences that are considered substantial between the historic and updated estimates for the observed flood events. Overall, precise comparisons for 114 observed flood events indicate that updated annual exceedance probabilities have increased for most of the observed flood events compared to the historic annual exceedance probabilities. Multiple large flood events exceeding the 2-percent annual exceedance-probability discharge estimate occurred at 37 of 98 selected streamgages during 1960–2012. Five large flood events were recorded at two streamgages in Ames during 1990–2010 and four large flood events were recorded at four other streamgages during 1973–2010. Results of Kendall’s tau trend-analysis tests for 35 of 37 selected streamgages indicate that a statistically significant trend is not evident for the 1963–2012 period of record; nor is an overall clear positive or negative trend evident for the 37 streamgages.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 40.5° to 43.5° latitude; -96.5° to -90° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

David A. Eash. 2014. Summary of U.S. Geological Survey reports documenting flood profiles of streams in Iowa, 1963-2012. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20145085

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗