Hillary McMillan | Search USGS

USGS2026

Streamflow and surface-water presence data availability across the conterminous United States: A review for headwater systems

Water is essential for life on Earth, supporting ecosystems, human health, and economic activities. Hydrology relies on observational data, and this paper discusses regional and national datasets for the conterminous United States (CONUS) publicly available as of 2023, focusing on headwaters, defined as first- and second-order streams at 1:24000 scale. It identifies 72 primary and secondary datasets and 11 repositories and argues how better integration and accessibility of hydrological data can improve research. The paper distinguishes between datasets where streamflow was the primary data collection objective and those where it was secondary. This distinction highlights opportunities to consider data from efforts peripheral to hydrology but is still useful for understanding hydrologic conditions. The analysis reveals that out of about 118 000 active and inactive stream observation sites, about 6.6% and 25% are located on first- and second-order streams, respectively. This indicates a substantial data gap for headwater systems, which account for over 77% of stream length in CONUS. Federal agencies manage 72% of hydrologic monitoring sites across all stream orders, but only 34% of these are in headwater systems. Academic institutions operate about 2% of sites, with almost half (48%) in headwater systems, focusing on ecosystem research. State agencies also operate about 2% of sites, primarily on larger systems, with 19% on headwaters. Additionally, 23% of sites are managed by multiple agencies. Spatial patterns further reveal pronounced disparities among physiographic regions. Eastern and coastal provinces show relatively dense monitoring, while central and western regions show sparse coverage. These gaps reflect historical priorities, logistical constraints, funding limitations, and the high cost of continuous instrumentation. To address biases in monitoring networks, data collection could be enhanced with low-cost monitoring, community science, and remote sensing technologies. This study also notes the benefits of long-term monitoring and prioritizing retention of streamgages with longer records.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2018

A comparison of methods for streamflow uncertainty estimation

Streamflow time series are commonly derived from stage‐discharge rating curves, but the uncertainty of the rating curve and resulting streamflow series are poorly understood. While different methods to quantify uncertainty in the stage‐discharge relationship exist, there is limited understanding of how uncertainty estimates differ between methods due to different assumptions and methodological choices. We compared uncertainty estimates and stage‐discharge rating curves from seven methods at three river locations of varying hydraulic complexity. Comparison of the estimated uncertainties revealed a wide range of estimates, particularly for high and low flows. At the simplest site on the Isère River (France), full width 95% uncertainties for the different methods ranged from 3 to 17% for median flows. In contrast, uncertainties were much higher and ranged from 41 to 200% for high flows in an extrapolated section of the rating curve at the Mahurangi River (New Zealand) and 28 to 101% for low flows at the Taf River (United Kingdom), where the hydraulic control is unstable at low flows. Differences between methods result from differences in the sources of uncertainty considered, differences in the handling of the time‐varying nature of rating curves, differences in the extent of hydraulic knowledge assumed, and differences in assumptions when extrapolating rating curves above or below the observed gaugings. Ultimately, the selection of an uncertainty method requires a match between user requirements and the assumptions made by the uncertainty method. Given the significant differences in uncertainty estimates between methods, we suggest that a clear statement of uncertainty assumptions be presented alongside streamflow uncertainty estimates.

Water Resources Research↗