Peak-flow and low-flow magnitude estimates at defined frequencies and durations for nontidal streams in Delaware

John C. Hammond; Edward J. Doheny; Jonathan J.A. Dillow; Mark R. Nardi; Peter A. Steeves; Daniel L. Warner

doi:10.3133/sir20225005

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20225005

Peak-flow and low-flow magnitude estimates at defined frequencies and durations for nontidal streams in Delaware

John C. Hammond·Edward J. Doheny·Jonathan J.A. Dillow·Mark R. Nardi·Peter A. Steeves·Daniel L. Warner

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Reliable estimates of the magnitude of peak flows in streams are required for the economical and safe design of transportation and water conveyance structures. In addition, reliable estimates of the magnitude of low flows at defined frequencies and durations are needed for meeting regulatory requirements, quantifying base flows in streams and rivers, and evaluating time of travel and dilution of toxic spills. This report, in cooperation with the Delaware Department of Transportation and the Delaware Geological Survey, presents methods for estimating the magnitude of peak flows and low flows at defined frequencies and durations on nontidal streams in Delaware, at locations both monitored by streamflow-gage sites and ungaged. Methods are presented for estimating (1) the magnitude of peak flows for return periods ranging from 2 to 500 years (50-percent to 0.2-percent annual-exceedance probability), and (2) the magnitude of low flows as applied to 7-, 14-, and 30-consecutive day low-flow periods with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, and 20 years (50-, 10-, and 5-percent annual non-exceedance probabilities). These methods are applicable to watersheds that exhibit a full range of development conditions in Delaware. The report also describes StreamStats, a web application that allows users to easily obtain peak-flow and low-flow magnitude estimates for user-selected locations in Delaware. Peak-flow and low-flow magnitude estimates for ungaged sites are obtained using statistical regression analysis through a process known as regionalization, where information from a group of streamflow-gage sites within a region forms the basis for estimates for ungaged sites within the same region. Ninety-four streamflow-gage sites in and near Delaware with at least 10 years of nonregulated annual peak-flow data were used for the peak-flow regression analysis, a subset of the 121 sites for which peak-flow estimates were computed. These sites included both continuous-record streamflow-gage sites as well as partial record sites. Forty-five streamflow-gage sites with at least 10 years of nonregulated low-flow data available were used for the low-flow regression analyses, a subset of the 68 sites for which low-flow estimates were computed. Estimates for gaged sites are obtained by combining (1) the station peak-flow statistics (mean, standard deviation, and skew) and peak-flow estimates using the recent Bulletin 17C guidelines that incorporate the Expected Moments Algorithm with (2) regional estimates of peak-flow magnitude derived from regional regression equations and regional skew derived from sites with records greater than or equal to 35 years. Example peak-flow estimate calculations using the methods presented in the report are given for (1) ungaged sites, (2) gaged sites, (3) sites upstream or downstream from a gaged location, and (4) sites between gaged locations. Estimates for low-flow gaged sites are obtained by combining (1) the station low-flow statistics (mean, standard deviation, and skew) and low-flow estimates with (2) regional estimates of low-flow magnitude derived from regional regression equations. Example low-flow estimate calculations using the methods presented in the report are given for (1) ungaged sites, (2) gaged sites, (3) sites upstream or downstream from a gaged location, and (4) sites between gaged locations. A total of 54 sites in the Coastal Plain region were used to develop peak-flow regressions for the region and 40 sites were used for the Piedmont region. Similarly, 24 sites were used for low-flow regression equation development in the Coastal Plain, with 21 in the Piedmont. Peak and low-flow site inclusion in the Coastal Plain tended to be more restricted with tidal influence and ranges of basin characteristics, including drainage area, limiting regression equation development and application. Regional regression equations for peak flows and low flows, as applicable to ungaged sites in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces in Delaware, are presented. Peak-flow regression equations used variables that quantified drainage area, basin slope, percent area with well-drained soils, percent area with poorly drained soils, impervious area, and percent area of surface water storage in estimating peak-flow estimates, whereas low-flow regression equations used only drainage area and percent poorly drained soils in the estimation of low flows. Average standard errors for peak-flow regressions tended to be lower than those for low- flow regressions, with lower errors in the Piedmont region for both peak- and low-flow regressions. For peak-flow estimates, a sensitivity analysis of Piedmont regression equation estimates to changes in impervious area is also presented. Additional topics associated with the analyses performed during the study are discussed, including (1) the availability and description of 32 basin and climatic characteristics considered during the development of the regional regression equations; (2) the treatment of increasing trends in the annual peak-flow series identified at 18 gaged sites and inclusion in or exclusion from the regional analysis; (3) regional skew analysis and determination of regression regions; (4) sample adjustments and removal of sites owing to regulation and redundancy; and (5) a brief comparison of peak- and low-flow estimates at gages used in previous studies.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 38.451013° to 39.839007° latitude; -75.788658° to -75.048939° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

John C. Hammond, Edward J. Doheny, Jonathan J.A. Dillow, Mark R. Nardi, Peter A. Steeves, Daniel L. Warner. 2022-02-18. Peak-flow and low-flow magnitude estimates at defined frequencies and durations for nontidal streams in Delaware. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20225005

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

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.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

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↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗