USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr20151058

An evaluation of the accuracy of modeled and computed streamflow time-series data for the Ohio River at Hannibal Lock and Dam and at a location upstream from Sardis, Ohio

Abstract

Between July 2013 and June 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) made 10 streamflow measurements on the Ohio River about 1.5 miles (mi) downstream from the Hannibal Lock and Dam (near Hannibal, Ohio) and 11 streamflow measurements near the USGS Sardis gage (station number 03114306) located approximately 2.4 mi upstream from Sardis, Ohio. The measurement results were used to assess the accuracy of modeled or computed instantaneous streamflow time series created and supplied by the USGS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and National Weather Service (NWS) for the Ohio River at Hannibal Lock and Dam and (or) at the USGS streamgage. Hydraulic or hydrologic models were used to create the modeled time series; index-velocity methods or gate-opening ratings coupled with hydropower operation data were used to create the computed time series. The time step of the various instantaneous streamflow time series ranged from 15 minutes to 24 hours (once-daily values at 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time [UTC]). The 15-minute time-series data, computed by the USGS for the Sardis gage, also were downsampled to 1-hour and 24-hour time steps to permit more direct comparisons with other streamflow time series. To facilitate comparisons between measurement results and time-series data, streamflows corresponding to the times of the streamflow measurements were computed from the time-series data by time-based linear interpolation. Prior to doing interpolations, measurement times for the Hannibal Lock and Dam location were adjusted for traveltime to account for the fact that the streamflow measurements were made about 1.5 mi downstream from the location corresponding to the modeled/computed time-series data. Measured and interpolated streamflows were tabulated along with residuals (the difference between measured and interpolated streamflows) and selected summary statistics. Overall, streamflows interpolated from the USGS computed 15-minute time-series data (hereafter referred to as the USGS 15-minute time-series data) had the smallest root-mean-square error (RMSE) (3,939 cubic feet per second [ft 3 /s]) and the second smallest mean absolute residual (2,636 ft 3 /s), whereas streamflows interpolated from the USACE 12 UTC time series had the largest RMSE (14,590 ft 3 /s) and the largest mean absolute residual (10,800 ft 3 /s). The larger RMSEs for streamflows interpolated from the USACE 12 UTC time series likely resulted in part from the coarser time step of that time series. Streamflows interpolated from the USGS downsampled 1-hour time series had the second smallest RMSE (4,025 ft 3 /s) and the smallest mean absolute residual (2,600 ft 3 /s). Somewhat surprisingly, streamflows interpolated from the NWS 6-hour model time series had the third smallest RMSE (4,483 ft 3 /s) and mean absolute residual (4,050 ft 3 /s) in spite of being determined from a time series with a coarser time step than the USACE 1-hour modeled and computed time series. Measured streamflows at the Sardis gage and at the Hannibal Lock and Dam measurement location were plotted versus residuals (expressed as a percentage of the measured streamflows) of corresponding interpolated time-series streamflow values. Results for each of the time series exhibited some anomaly, possibly indicating the need and (or) potential for improvement in the streamflow computational/modeling processes. Streamflow hydrographs were plotted for modeled/computed time series for the Ohio River near the USGS Sardis gage and the Ohio River at the Hannibal Lock and Dam. In general, the time series at these two locations compared well. Some notable differences include the exclusive presence of short periods of negative streamflows in the USGS 15-minute time-series data for the gage on the Ohio River above Sardis, Ohio, and the occurrence of several peak streamflows in the USACE gate/hydropower time series for the Hannibal Lock and Dam that were appreciably larger than corresponding peaks in the other time series, including those modeled/computed for the downstream Sardis gage

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.57817336212527° to 39.68182601089365° latitude; -80.96099853515624° to -80.82092285156249° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G. F. Koltun. 2015. An evaluation of the accuracy of modeled and computed streamflow time-series data for the Ohio River at Hannibal Lock and Dam and at a location upstream from Sardis, Ohio. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151058

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona