Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Future Generation Computer Systems”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

43 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2001

Ground-water discharge determined from estimates of evapotranspiration, Death Valley regional flow system, Nevada and California

The Death Valley regional flow system (DVRFS) is one of the larger ground-water flow systems in the southwestern United States and includes much of southern Nevada and the Death Valley region of eastern California. Centrally located within the ground-water flow system is the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The NTS, a large tract covering about 1,375 square miles, historically has been used for testing nuclear devices and currently is being studied as a potential repository for the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste generated in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy, as mandated by Federal and State regulators, is evaluating the risk associated with contaminants that have been or may be introduced into the subsurface as a consequence of any past or future activities at the NTS. Because subsurface contaminants can be transported away from the NTS by ground water, components of the ground-water budget are of great interest. One such component is regional ground-water discharge. Most of the ground water leaving the DVRFS is limited to local areas where geologic and hydrologic conditions force ground water upward toward the surface to discharge at springs and seeps. Available estimates of ground-water discharge are based primarily on early work done as part of regional reconnaissance studies. These early efforts covered large, geologically complex areas and often applied substantially different techniques to estimate ground-water discharge. This report describes the results of a study that provides more consistent, accurate, and scientifically defensible measures of regional ground-water losses from each of the major discharge areas of the DVRFS. Estimates of ground-water discharge presented in this report are based on a rigorous quantification of local evapotranspiration (ET). The study identifies areas of ongoing ground-water ET, delineates different ET areas based on similarities in vegetation and soil-moisture conditions, and determines an ET rate for each delineated area. Each area, referred to as an ET unit, generally consists of one or more assemblages of local phreatophytes or a unique moist soil environment. Ten ET units are identified throughout the DVRFS based on differences in spectral-reflectance characteristics. Spectral differences are determined from satellite imagery acquired June 21, 1989, and June 13, 1992. The units identified include areas of open playa, moist bare soils, sparse to dense vegetation, and open water. ET rates estimated for each ET unit range from a few tenths of a foot per year for open playa to nearly 9 feet per year for open water. Mean annual ET estimates are computed for each discharge area by summing estimates of annual ET from each ET unit within a discharge area. The estimate of annual ET from each ET unit is computed as the product of an ET unit's acreage and estimated ET rate. Estimates of mean annual ET range from 450 acre-feet in the Franklin Well area to 30,000 acre-feet in Sarcobatus Flat. Ground-water discharge is estimated as annual ET minus that part of ET attributed to local precipitation. Mean annual ground-water discharge estimates range from 350 acre-feet in the Franklin Well area to 18,000 acre-feet in Ash Meadows. Generally, these estimates are greater for the northern discharge areas (Sarcobatus Flat and Oasis Valley) and less for the southern discharge areas (Franklin Lake, Shoshone area, and Tecopa/ California Valley area) than those previously reported.

California;Nevada↗
USGS2018

Conceptual and numerical models of dissolved solids in the Colorado River, Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam, and Parker Dam to Imperial Dam, Arizona, California, and Nevada

Conceptual and numerical models were developed to understand and simulate monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. The ability to simulate dissolved-solids concentrations at this location will help the Bureau of Reclamation satisfy the binational agreement on the volume and salinity of Colorado River water delivered to Mexico. A robust spatial- and temporal-resolution dataset that consists of river discharge and dissolved-solids concentration and load information between January 1990 and September 2016 for 10 sites on canals, drains, tributaries, and the main stem of the Colorado River between Hoover and Imperial Dams was generated. Daily mean dissolved-solids concentrations were estimated and monthly mean dissolved-solids loads were computed for each site. Spatial and temporal load patterns, and historical and current controls on loads and concentrations, were analyzed in order to develop a conceptual model of dissolved-solids transport between Hoover and Imperial Dams. Two numerical models describing the relations between dissolved-solids concentrations and components controlling dissolved-solids concentrations and loads were developed, calibrated, and verified. Between January 1990 and September 2016, there was a 98.8-million-acre-feet loss of water and a 57.0-million-ton loss of dissolved-solids load from the Colorado River between Hoover and Imperial Dams. Between Hoover and Parker Dams, about 69.0 million acre-feet of water was lost and 51.1 million tons of dissolved solids were lost; between Parker and Imperial Dams, about 29.8 million acre-feet of water was lost and 5.9 million tons of dissolved solids were lost. Water was removed from the river at a relatively consistent rate over the 25-year study period through water transfers to California and Arizona, evapotranspiration from crop irrigation, transpiration processes of riparian vegetation, and evaporation from the river main stem. Dissolved solids were removed from the river between Hoover and Parker Dams at a relatively constant rate through water transfers to California and Arizona, and water pumped from the river for irrigation within the Mohave Valley. A small amount of dissolved solids are gained by the river from inflow from the Bill Williams River. Between Parker and Imperial Dams, however, dissolved solids were not removed from the river at a consistent rate over the study period. Dissolved solids were generally removed from the river from 1990 to 2012, then gained by the river from 2012 to 2015, and then removed from the river from 2015 through 2016. Dissolved solids are assumed to be removed from the river and accumulated within the floodplain sediments and aquifers during irrigation processes; some dissolved solids may also be removed from the river through uptake by crops and riparian vegetation. Dissolved solids accumulated on the landscape and in the floodplain aquifer during irrigation are transported to the river during periods when the hydraulic gradient between the floodplain aquifer and the river is increased, causing a gain in dissolved solids in the river. Dissolved-solids gains in the river occur during periods of relatively low river discharge, such as during the winter months and during drier climatic conditions. Two numerical models were developed and coefficients were estimated by using data from a May 2008-September 2016 calibration period. One model simulates concentrations at Imperial Dam based on the Colorado River system downstream from Parker Dam, and the other model simulates concentrations at Imperial Dam based on the Colorado River system downstream from Hoover Dam. Both models simulated monthly flow-weighted concentrations of dissolved solids for the Colorado River at Imperial Dam, which corresponded well with observed concentrations for the entire study period. The models are more sensitive to input variables of monthly discharge of the Colorado River below Parker Dam and monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam and Parker Dam than to the rate of change in concentration with respect to time and the combined discharge of the Colorado River Indian Reservation Main Canal and the Palo Verde Canal. The calibrated models can be used to run scenarios of future monthly flow-weighted dissolved-solids concentrations in the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. Although the models are expected to provide concentration estimates within 18 milligrams per liter (Parker Dam to Imperial Dam model) to 22 milligrams per liter (Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam model), 95 percent of the time, the error of future scenarios increases as uncertainty in the estimated future input variables increases.

Arizona, California, Nevada↗
USGS2019

Water-budget analysis of the Upper Big Sandy Designated Ground-water Basin alluvial aquifer, Elbert, El Paso, and Lincoln Counties, Colorado, 2016

The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Upper Big Sandy Groundwater Management District carried out a study in 2016 to evaluate potential groundwater storage changes within the Upper Big Sandy Designated Groundwater Basin (UBSDGB) alluvial aquifer, including groundwater flow between the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer and the Denver Basin bedrock aquifers. The UBSDGB alluvial aquifer is located along the ephemeral Big Sandy Creek on the east-central edge of the Denver Basin aquifer system and covers an area of about 66,560 acres within the UBSDGB. The UBSDGB alluvial aquifer consists of unconsolidated Quaternary sand and gravel deposits that contain an unconfined (water table) groundwater system. The western three-fourths of the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer overlies the Tertiary and Cretaceous bedrock formations that compose the Denver Basin aquifer system. The updated water budget for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer, including annual change in groundwater storage in 2016, was determined by combining water-budget information from an existing Denver Basin model for about three-fourths of the study area with best estimates for the major water-budget components for the area outside the Denver Basin aquifer system. The western part of the UBSDGB was included in the Denver Basin model (modeled area), whereas the eastern part of the UBSDGB was not included in the Denver Basin model (unmodeled area). The water-budget components were first estimated for the modeled area using outputs from the Denver Basin model, which uses the modular finite-difference groundwater flow computer model MODFLOW-2000 with 1-mile grid cells. For this study, the Denver Basin model was updated with additional data from 2004 through 2016 to generate current (2016) estimates of water consumption in the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. A basin-specific water budget for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer from the Denver Basin model was computed using a modeling tool called ZONEBUDGET. The modeled area groundwater budget, along with previous studies, was used to estimate a groundwater budget for the unmodeled area, and results for the modeled and unmodeled areas were combined for an overall water-budget estimate for the entire UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. The net groundwater flow into the basin from adjacent alluvial aquifers was positive with flow entering the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Combining the total inflow from adjacent alluvial and the total outflow to adjacent alluvial aquifers resulted in a net flow from adjacent alluvial aquifers to UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of 5,125 acre-feet (ac-ft) in 2016. The net flow between the underlying bedrock aquifers and the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer was positive with flow entering the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer from the bedrock aquifers. The net flow from the bedrock aquifers to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer was 347 ac-ft in 2016. Net recharge (precipitation and irrigation return flows minus evaporation) into the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer was negative with groundwater being removed from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer over the total area of the basin. Combining the total inflow from recharge to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of 11,153 ac-ft in 2016 and the total evapo-transpiration of −11,656 ac-ft from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer in 2016 resulted in a net recharge from UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of −503 ac-ft in 2016. Combining the modeled and unmodeled well pumping resulted in a total well pumping volume of −3,735 ac-ft in 2016 from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. The net groundwater flow to the stream network in the basin was negative with flow discharging from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer into streams. Combining the total inflow from streams and the total outflow to streams for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer resulted in −1,032 ac-ft in 2016 that was lost to the stream network in the UBSDGB. The net groundwater flow out of the UBSDGB was negative with flow leaving the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Combining the total area inflow to the basin from upgradient areas and the total area outflow from the basin for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer resulted in a net flow out of the basin of −2,300 ac-ft. In the annual groundwater budget for 2016, groundwater storage in the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer system was removed because annual groundwater outflows from storage exceeded groundwater inflows to storage; in other words, water was removed from storage to balance the annual water budget. Combining the net flow from storage for the modeled area of 73 ac-ft and the inflow from storage for the unmodeled area of 2,025 ac-ft resulted in a net positive flow from storage of the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer of 2,098 ac-ft. Increased pumping since 1958 in the Denver and upper Arapahoe aquifers, not necessarily in the UBSDGB, has caused a change in flow from bedrock units, which were minor or non-contributors of inflow to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer, to receiving outflow from the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Since 2000, aquifer storage has been an inflow component of the water budget, which means that outflow from the modeled area exceeded inflow for the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. Increased recharge from wetter than average years could replenish the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. From 2003 through 2016, 13 of the 25 observation wells completed in the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer had a decline in the groundwater-level elevation with an average decline of −2.21 feet, and 12 of the 25 observation wells had an increase in the groundwater-level elevation with an average increase of 1.54 feet. In general, wells at the eastern and western edges of the UBSDGB showed an increase in groundwater-level elevation that appears related to areas of groundwater discharge from the lower Dawson and Laramie-Fox Hills bedrock aquifers to the UBSDGB alluvial aquifer. The remaining wells exhibited water-level declines. Future work could include the development of a basin-specific model to serve as a basin management tool for modeling changes in groundwater levels and storage under various future groundwater recharge and withdrawal scenarios.

Colorado↗
USGS2022

Effect of uncertainty of discharge data on uncertainty of discharge simulation for the Lake Michigan Diversion, northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana

Simulation models of watershed hydrology (also referred to as “rainfall-runoff models”) are calibrated to the best available streamflow data, which are typically published discharge time series at the outlet of the watershed. Even after calibration, the model generally cannot replicate the published discharges because of simplifications of the physical system embedded in the model structure and uncertainties of the input data and of the estimated model parameters, which, although optimized for the given calibration data, remain uncertain. The input data errors are caused by uncertainties in the forcing data, such as precipitation and other climatological data, and in the published discharges used for calibration. In the numerical algorithms used for calibration, the published discharges are often assumed to be without error, but they are themselves uncertain, typically having been computed using ratings, which are models fitted to uncertain discharge measurements. In this study, uncertainty of published daily discharge data and how the discharge uncertainty is transmitted to the parameter values of the Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) rainfall-runoff model and to the simulated discharge at both calibration and prediction locations were investigated for the Lake Michigan diversion in northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana. The HSPF model used in this study is used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of quantifying the diversion of water from Lake Michigan by the State of Illinois. In this study, the model is calibrated jointly at two watersheds in the study area; the resulting model is considered the base model in this study. Seven other gaged watersheds in the study area are used for testing predictive simulations. A Bayesian rating curve estimation (BaRatin) approach, the BaRatin stage-period-discharge (SPD) method, was used to estimate the uncertainty of the published discharge from the calibration watersheds. To characterize the effect of the discharge uncertainty on parameter values, the HSPF model parameters were recalibrated to 17 nonrandomly selected pairs of discharge series from the BaRatin SPD analysis. To provide an indicator of the effect of parameter uncertainty to compare to the effect of discharge uncertainty, 1,000 parameter sets also were randomly generated from the estimated parameter covariance matrix of the base model. The recalibrated and random parameter sets were then used in HSPF simulations of discharge at the two calibration watersheds and at the seven prediction watersheds. Selected discharge summary statistics—the period-of-study (POS, water years 1997 to 2015) mean discharge, selected flow-duration curve (FDC) quantiles, and water year mean discharges—are used to characterize the variability between simulated and published discharge. A normalized variability index ( V N ) is used as a measure of the uncertainty of flow statistics arising from the uncertainty of the sources considered in this study. When this index is at least 1, the variability of the simulations is large enough to explain the median error between simulated and published values, although offsetting errors from other sources are also likely. When the index is appreciably less than 1, the variability of the simulations is clearly insufficient to explain the median error between simulated and published values. At the two calibration watersheds and for results of the two simulation sets considered together, the V N values ranged from 0.2 to 0.8 for POS mean discharge, from 0.3 to 0.6 in the median for a set of FDC quantiles, and from 0.1 to 0.2 in the median for water year mean discharges. These values indicate that substantial uncertainty remains unexplained. Even though two watersheds were used in calibration, that calibration was highly constrained because it was applied to the watersheds simultaneously and was subject to parameter regularization that constrained the adjustment of the parameters from their initial values. These constraints were applied to avoid overfitting to the calibration watersheds and thus to increase the likelihood that the resulting parameters would give accurate results at watersheds not used in the calibration, but they created a parameter transfer error in the calibration watershed results shown by the balancing of errors between the two watersheds. Additional remaining error sources include model structural error and meteorological forcing error to the degree that the calibration was unable to adjust the parameters to account for these errors. At the prediction watersheds, the corresponding V N values were almost always substantially lower than those values at the calibration watersheds. This result is expected because the prediction watersheds have additional uncertainty, including parameter transfer error. The work described in this report provides preliminary estimates of a limited range of sources of error in predicted discharge uncertainty. Future work would be beneficial to obtain a better statistical characterization of the effect of the uncertainty of calibration discharge series and to address additional sources of uncertainty, such as from precipitation input data used in calibration and prediction and from structural (model) errors.

Illinois, Indiana↗
USGS2021

Groundwater/surface-water interactions in the Partridge River Basin and evaluation of hypothetical future mine pits, Minnesota

The Partridge River Basin (PRB) covers 156 square miles in northeastern Minnesota with headwaters in the Mesabi Iron Range. The basin is characterized by extensive wetlands, lakes, and streams in poorly drained and often thin glacial material overlying Proterozoic bedrock. To better understand the interaction between these extensive surface water features and the groundwater system, a three-dimensional, steady-state, groundwater-flow model of the PRB was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission using the finite-difference computer code MODFLOW-NWT. The model simulates steady-state base flow in streams and groundwater interactions using the streamflow routing (SFR2) package. Existing mining features including tailings basins, stockpiles, pumped mine pits, and flooded mine pits were simulated using either high hydraulic conductivity zones or the drain (DRN) package. The unsaturated zone flow (UZF) package was used to better represent the groundwater system in areas with a high water table and for wetlands often associated with such areas. UZF typically is used to represent unsaturated zone processes but also can simulate the rejection of recharge and groundwater discharge to the land surface when the water table is near land surface. The steady-state model used data from the 2011 to 2013 period when 2011 high-resolution land surface (light detecting and ranging [lidar]) data were available that reflected land-surface and water elevations from mining activity in the basin. The parameter-estimation software suite PEST_HP was used to obtain a best fit of the modeled to measured groundwater levels, streamflow, pit inflow rates, and mapped peat deposits. The PEST calibration used the target residuals from two models with the same model parameters and targets from two separate periods: (1) a 1995–2015 calibration model, which provided a larger number of calibration targets, and (2) a 2011–2013 mining conditions model, which included calibration targets that reflected conditions consistent with the modeled mine-workings topography. Calibration of the PRB model resulted in ranges of glacial horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameters that generally agreed with literature values and other models of the region. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock was higher in the upper bedrock layers where numerous and continuous fractures have been observed and lower in the deeper bedrock layers. Average basin-wide calibrated infiltration was 5.3 inches per year. An average of 4.6 inches per year of infiltration crosses the water table and becomes recharge and 0.7 inch per year is rejected by UZF due to saturated conditions at the land surface. Simulated groundwater runoff (the sum of rejected recharge and groundwater seepage to the land surface) can either be routed to streams or removed from the model as evapotranspiration. The calibrated model indicates relatively shallow groundwater-flow paths dominating and approximately 50 percent of the stream base flow coming from groundwater runoff. The 2011–2013 mining conditions model was then used to develop five model scenarios simulating the response of the groundwater and surface-water system to potential hydrologic stress. The purpose of these mine pit scenarios is to present a possible workflow to quantify a model’s uncertainty for a given model forecast and serve as a possible guide for initial data collection that may improve a future model’s ability to make such a forecast. The scenarios included one scenario with the currently existing Peter Mitchell pit at final buildout and flooded to an elevation of 1,500 feet, and four scenarios with a hypothetical, new mine pit plus the flooded Peter Mitchell at final buildout. The five model scenarios were used to forecast streamflow at six locations in the PRB, pit inflow rates for the new mine pits and the flooded Peter Mitchell pit, and the average depth to water in 12 wetlands. A linear uncertainty analysis was performed using information from the PEST calibration and tools in the PyEMU python package to assess model uncertainty propagation to the model forecasts. Streamflows generally were reduced with future mining and the greatest streamflow reductions occurred from the flooded Peter Mitchell Pit, probably due to its large size. Average depth to groundwater in wetlands was most affected the closer the wetland was to a new mine pit. Linear uncertainty methods were also used to evaluate data worth, which is the ability for potential new groundwater elevation observations to reduce the uncertainty in scenario forecasts. Data worth was performed for a grid of new hydraulic head observations. Overall, areas with nonnegligible data worth generally corresponded to wetland areas with no groundwater seepage to land surface from UZF. These model behaviors indicated that the land-surface boundary condition simulated by the UZF package was pinning the groundwater elevations to the land surface in areas with groundwater seepage (33 percent of the 2011–2013 base conditions model) such that the sensitivity to new observations in these areas was minimal. Therefore, representing wetlands as boundary conditions minimized the usefulness of data worth calculations because wetland areas were present over a large part of the model domain. Probabilistic capture zones were estimated for each of the mines in the model scenarios. A capture zone represents the area contributing recharge to a model feature, like a well or a mine pit, and can be calculated by forward tracking particles from the water table. By using Monte Carlo techniques, it is possible to generate estimated capture zones that include the probability of recharge capture given the uncertainty present in the model. Monte Carlo techniques use randomly generated model parameter sets sampled from a plausible parameter range to create many possible realizations. The resulting capture zone arrays were calculated by tallying the total number of realizations in which a particle from a model cell was captured by the feature. Probabilities from the Monte Carlo runs ranged from 1 (captured in 100 percent of the runs) near the pits to 0 (captured in 0 percent of the runs) at the edges of the capture zone. Capture zones were not always spatially continuous; for example, the capture zone for the proposed mine pits south of the flooded Peter Mitchell pit was discontinuous with capture surrounding the proposed mine pit and north of the flooded Peter Mitchell pit. This northern section represents deeper groundwater flow paths that originate in the topographic high, move under the flooded pit, and discharge into the proposed pit. This pattern of capture indicates the possibility of some deeper flow through the upper fractured bedrock when the shallow groundwater flow system is modified. These results underscore that future site-specific applications of the base condition model require the input of site-specific data and recalibration to focus on the site of interest.

Minnesota↗
USGS2014

Evaluation of the expected moments algorithm and a multiple low-outlier test for flood frequency analysis at streamgaging stations in Arizona

Flooding is among the costliest natural disasters in terms of loss of life and property in Arizona, which is why the accurate estimation of flood frequency and magnitude is crucial for proper structural design and accurate floodplain mapping. Current guidelines for flood frequency analysis in the United States are described in Bulletin 17B (B17B), yet since B17B’s publication in 1982 (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982), several improvements have been proposed as updates for future guidelines. Two proposed updates are the Expected Moments Algorithm (EMA) to accommodate historical and censored data, and a generalized multiple Grubbs-Beck (MGB) low-outlier test. The current guidelines use a standard Grubbs-Beck (GB) method to identify low outliers, changing the determination of the moment estimators because B17B uses a conditional probability adjustment to handle low outliers while EMA censors the low outliers. B17B and EMA estimates are identical if no historical information or censored or low outliers are present in the peak-flow data. EMA with MGB (EMA-MGB) test was compared to the standard B17B (B17B-GB) method for flood frequency analysis at 328 streamgaging stations in Arizona. The methods were compared using the relative percent difference (RPD) between annual exceedance probabilities (AEPs), goodness-of-fit assessments, random resampling procedures, and Monte Carlo simulations. The AEPs were calculated and compared using both station skew and weighted skew. Streamgaging stations were classified by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) qualification codes, used to denote historical and censored peak-flow data, to better understand the effect that nonstandard flood information has on the flood frequency analysis for each method. Streamgaging stations were also grouped according to geographic flood regions and analyzed separately to better understand regional differences caused by physiography and climate. The B17B-GB and EMA-MGB RPD-boxplot results showed that the median RPDs across all streamgaging stations for the 10-, 1-, and 0.2-percent AEPs, computed using station skew, were approximately zero. As the AEP flow estimates decreased (that is, from 10 to 0.2 percent AEP) the variability in the RPDs increased, indicating that the AEP flow estimate was greater for EMA-MGB when compared to B17B-GB. There was only one RPD greater than 100 percent for the 10- and 1-percent AEP estimates, whereas 19 RPDs exceeded 100 percent for the 0.2-percent AEP. At streamgaging stations with low-outlier data, historical peak-flow data, or both, RPDs ranged from −84 to 262 percent for the 0.2-percent AEP flow estimate. When streamgaging stations were separated by the presence of historical peak-flow data (that is, no low outliers or censored peaks) or by low outlier peak-flow data (no historical data), the results showed that RPD variability was greatest for the 0.2-AEP flow estimates, indicating that the treatment of historical and (or) low-outlier data was different between methods and that method differences were most influential when estimating the less probable AEP flows (1, 0.5, and 0.2 percent). When regional skew information was weighted with the station skew, B17B-GB estimates were generally higher than the EMA-MGB estimates for any given AEP. This was related to the different regional skews and mean square error used in the weighting procedure for each flood frequency analysis. The B17B-GB weighted skew analysis used a more positive regional skew determined in USGS Water Supply Paper 2433 (Thomas and others, 1997), while the EMA-MGB analysis used a more negative regional skew with a lower mean square error determined from a Bayesian generalized least squares analysis. Regional groupings of streamgaging stations reflected differences in physiographic and climatic characteristics. Potentially influential low flows (PILFs) were more prevalent in arid regions of the State, and generally AEP flows were larger with EMA-MGB than with B17B-GB for gaging stations with PILFs. In most cases EMA-MGB curves would fit the largest floods more accurately than B17B-GB. In areas of the State with more baseflow, such as along the Mogollon Rim and the White Mountains, streamgaging stations generally had fewer PILFs and more positive skews, causing estimated AEP flows to be larger with B17B-GB than with EMA-MGB. The effect of including regional skew was similar for all regions, and the observed pattern was increasingly greater B17B-GB flows (more negative RPDs) with each decreasing AEP quantile. A variation on a goodness-of-fit test statistic was used to describe each method’s ability to fit the largest floods. The mean absolute percent difference between the measured peak flows and the log-Pearson Type 3 (LP3)-estimated flows, for each method, was averaged over the 90th, 75th, and 50th percentiles of peak-flow data at each site. In most percentile subsets, EMA-MGB on average had smaller differences (1 to 3 percent) between the observed and fitted value, suggesting that the EMA-MGB-LP3 distribution is fitting the observed peak-flow data more precisely than B17B-GB. The smallest EMA-MGB percent differences occurred for the greatest 10 percent (90th percentile) of the peak-flow data. When stations were analyzed by USGS NWIS peak flow qualification code groups, the stations with historical peak flows and no low outliers had average percent differences as high as 11 percent greater for B17B-GB, indicating that EMA-MGB utilized the historical information to fit the largest observed floods more accurately. A resampling procedure was used in which 1,000 random subsamples were drawn, each comprising one-half of the observed data. An LP3 distribution was fit to each subsample using B17B-GB and EMA-MGB methods, and the predicted 1-percent AEP flows were compared to those generated from distributions fit to the entire dataset. With station skew, the two methods were similar in the median percent difference, but with weighted skew EMA-MGB estimates were generally better. At two gages where B17B-GB appeared to perform better, a large number of peak flows were deemed to be PILFs by the MGB test, although they did not appear to depart significantly from the trend of the data (step or dogleg appearance). At two gages where EMA-MGB performed better, the MGB identified several PILFs that were affecting the fitted distribution of the B17B-GB method. Monte Carlo simulations were run for the LP3 distribution using different skews and with different assumptions about the expected number of historical peaks. The primary benefit of running Monte Carlo simulations is that the underlying distribution statistics are known, meaning that the true 1-percent AEP is known. The results showed that EMA-MGB performed as well or better in situations where the LP3 distribution had a zero or positive skew and historical information. When the skew for the LP3 distribution was negative, EMA-MGB performed significantly better than B17B-GB and EMA-MGB estimates were less biased by more closely estimating the true 1-percent AEP for 1, 2, and 10 historical flood scenarios.

Arizona↗
USGS2011

Flood-frequency analyses from paleoflood investigations for Spring, Rapid, Boxelder, and Elk Creeks, Black Hills, western South Dakota

Flood-frequency analyses for the Black Hills area are important because of severe flooding of June 9-10, 1972, that was caused by a large mesoscale convective system and caused at least 238 deaths. Many 1972 peak flows are high outliers (by factors of 10 or more) in observed records that date to the early 1900s. An efficient means of reducing uncertainties for flood recurrence is to augment gaged records by using paleohydrologic techniques to determine ages and magnitudes of prior large floods (paleofloods). This report summarizes results of paleoflood investigations for Spring Creek, Rapid Creek (two reaches), Boxelder Creek (two subreaches), and Elk Creek. Stratigraphic records and resulting long-term flood chronologies, locally extending more than 2,000 years, were combined with observed and adjusted peak-flow values (gaged records) and historical flood information to derive flood-frequency estimates for the six study reaches. Results indicate that (1) floods as large as and even substantially larger than 1972 have affected most of the study reaches, and (2) incorporation of the paleohydrologic information substantially reduced uncertainties in estimating flood recurrence. Canyons within outcrops of Paleozoic rocks along the eastern flanks of the Black Hills provided excellent environments for (1) deposition and preservation of stratigraphic sequences of late-Holocene flood deposits, primarily in protected slack-water settings flanking the streams; and (2) hydraulic analyses for determination of associated flow magnitudes. The bedrock canyons ensure long-term stability of channel and valley geometry, thereby increasing confidence in hydraulic computations of ancient floods from modern channel geometry. Stratigraphic records of flood sequences, in combination with deposit dating by radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence, and cesium-137, provided paleoflood chronologies for 29 individual study sites. Flow magnitudes were estimated from elevations of flood deposits in conjunction with hydraulic calculations based on modern channel and valley geometry. Reach-scale paleoflood chronologies were interpreted for each study reach, which generally entailed correlation of flood evidence among multiple sites, chiefly based on relative position within stratigraphic sequences, unique textural characteristics, or results of age dating and flow estimation. The FLDFRQ3 and PeakfqSA analytical models (assuming log-Pearson Type III frequency distributions) were used for flood-frequency analyses for as many as four scenarios: (1) analysis of gaged records only; (2) gaged records with historical information; (3) all available data including gaged records, historical flows, paleofloods, and perception thresholds; and (4) the same as the third scenario, but ?top fitting? the distribution using only the largest 50 percent of gaged peak flows. The PeakfqSA model is most consistent with procedures adopted by most Federal agencies for flood-frequency analysis and thus was (1) used for comparisons among results for study reaches, and (2) considered by the authors as most appropriate for general applications of estimating low-probability flood recurrence. The detailed paleoflood investigations indicated that in the last 2,000 years all study reaches have had multiple large floods substantially larger than in gaged records. For Spring Creek, stratigraphic records preserved a chronology of at least five paleofloods in approximately (~) 1,000 years approaching or exceeding the 1972 flow of 21,800 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s). The largest was ~700 years ago with a flow range of 29,300-58,600 ft 3 /s, which reflects the uncertainty regarding flood-magnitude estimates that was incorporated in the flood-frequency analyses. In the lower reach of Rapid Creek (downstream from Pactola Dam), two paleofloods in ~1,000 years exceeded the 1972 flow of 31,200 ft 3 /s. Those occurred ~440 and 1,000 years ago, with flows of 128,000-256,000 and 64,000-128,000 ft 3 /s, respectively. Five smaller paleofloods of 9,500-19,000 ft 3 /s occurred between ~200 and 400 years ago. In the upper reach of Rapid Creek (above Pactola Reservoir), the largest recorded floods are substantially smaller than for lower Rapid Creek and all other study reaches. Paleofloods of ~12,900 and 12,000 ft 3 /s occurred ~1,000 and 1,500 years ago. One additional paleoflood (~800 years ago) was similar in magnitude to the largest gaged flow of 2,460 ft 3 /s Boxelder Creek was treated as having two subreaches because of two tributaries that affect peak flows. During the last ~1,000 years, paleofloods of ~39,000-78,000 ft 3 /s and 40,000-80,000 ft 3 /s in the upstream subreach have exceeded the 1972 peak flow of 30,800 ft 3 /s. One other paleoflood was similar to the second largest gaged flow (16,400 ft 3 /s in 1907). For the downstream subreach, paleofloods of 61,300-123,000 ft 3 /s and 52,500-105,000 ft 3 /s in the last ~1,000 years have substantially exceeded the 1972 flood (50,500 ft 3 /s). Four additional paleofloods had flows between 14,200 and 33,800 ft 3 /s. The 1972 flow on Elk Creek (10,400 ft 3 /s) has been substantially exceeded at least five times in the last 1,900 years. The largest paleoflood (41,500-124,000 ft 3 /s) was ~900 years ago. Three other paleofloods between 37,500 and 120,000 ft 3 /s occurred between 1,100 and 1,800 years ago. A fifth paleoflood of 25,500-76,500 ft 3 /s was ~750 years ago. Considering analyses for all available data (PeakfqSA model) for all six study reaches, the 95-percent confidence intervals about the low-probability quantile estimates (100-, 200-, and 500-year recurrence intervals) were reduced by at least 78 percent relative to those for the gaged records only. In some cases, 95-percent uncertainty intervals were reduced by 99 percent or more. For all study reaches except the two Boxelder Creek subreaches, quantile estimates for these long-term analyses were larger than for the short-term analyses. The 1972 flow for the Spring Creek study reach (21,800 ft 3 /s) corresponds with a recurrence interval of ~400 years. Recurrence intervals are ~500 years for the 1972 flood magnitudes along the lower Rapid Creek reach and the upstream subreach of Boxelder Creek. For the downstream subreach of Boxelder Creek, the large 1972 flood magnitude (50,500 ft 3 /s) exceeds the 500-year quantile estimate by about 35 percent. The recurrence interval of ~100 years for 1972 flooding along the Elk Creek study reach is small relative to other study reaches along the eastern margin of the Black Hills. All of the paleofloods plot within the bounds of a national envelope curve, indicating that the national curve represents exceedingly rare floods for the Black Hills area. Elk Creek, lower Rapid Creek, and the downstream subreach of Boxelder Creek all have paleofloods that plot above a regional envelope curve; in the case of Elk Creek, by a factor of nearly two. The Black Hills paleofloods represent some of the largest known floods, relative to drainage area, for the United States. Many of the other largest known United States floods are in areas with physiographic and climatologic conditions broadly similar to the Black Hills-semiarid and rugged landscapes that intercept and focus heavy precipitation from convective storm systems. The 1972 precipitation and runoff patterns, previous analyses of peak-flow records, and the paleoflood investigations of this study support a hypothesis of distinct differences in flood generation within the central Black Hills study area. The eastern Black Hills are susceptible to intense orographic lifting associated with convective storm systems and also have high relief, thin soils, and narrow and steep canyons-factors favoring generation of exceptionally heavy rain-producing thunderstorms and promoting runoff and rapid concentration of flow into stream channels. In contrast, storm potential is smaller in and near the Limestone Plateau area, and storm runoff is further reduced by substantial infiltration into the limestone, gentle topography, and extensive floodplain storage. Results of the paleoflood investigations are directly applicable only to the specific study reaches and in the case of Rapid Creek, only to pre-regulation conditions. Thus, approaches for broader applications were developed from inferences of overall flood-generation processes, and appropriate domains for application of results were described. Example applications were provided by estimating flood quantiles for selected streamgages, which also allowed direct comparison with results of at-site flood-frequency analyses from a previous study. Several broad issues and uncertainties were examined, including potential biases associated with stratigraphic records that inherently are not always complete, uncertainties regarding statistical approaches, and the unknown applicability of paleoflood records to future watershed conditions. The results of the paleoflood investigations, however, provide much better physically based information on low-probability floods than has been available previously, substantially improving estimates of the magnitude and frequency of large floods in these basins and reducing associated uncertainty.

South Dakota↗