Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina

J. Curtis Weaver; Toby D. Feaster; Anthony J. Gotvald

doi:10.3133/sir20095158

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20095158

Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina

J. Curtis Weaver·Toby D. Feaster·Anthony J. Gotvald

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Reliable estimates of the magnitude and frequency of floods are required for the economical and safe design of transportation and water-conveyance structures. A multistate approach was used to update methods for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in rural, ungaged basins in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia that are not substantially affected by regulation, tidal fluctuations, or urban development. In North Carolina, annual peak-flow data available through September 2006 were available for 584 sites; 402 of these sites had a total of 10 or more years of systematic record that is required for at-site, flood-frequency analysis. Following data reviews and the computation of 20 physical and climatic basin characteristics for each station as well as at-site flood-frequency statistics, annual peak-flow data were identified for 363 sites in North Carolina suitable for use in this analysis. Among these 363 sites, 19 sites had records that could be divided into unregulated and regulated/ channelized annual peak discharges, which means peak-flow records were identified for a total of 382 cases in North Carolina. Considering the 382 cases, at-site flood-frequency statistics are provided for 333 unregulated cases (also used for the regression database) and 49 regulated/channelized cases. The flood-frequency statistics for the 333 unregulated sites were combined with data for sites from South Carolina, Georgia, and adjacent parts of Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia to create a database of 943 sites considered for use in the regional regression analysis. Flood-frequency statistics were computed by fitting logarithms (base 10) of the annual peak flows to a log-Pearson Type III distribution. As part of the computation process, a new generalized skew coefficient was developed by using a Bayesian generalized least-squares regression model. Exploratory regression analyses using ordinary least-squares regression completed on the initial database of 943 sites resulted in defining five hydrologic regions for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Stations with drainage areas less than 1 square mile were removed from the database, and a procedure to examine for basin redundancy (based on drainage area and periods of record) also resulted in the removal of some stations from the regression database. Flood-frequency estimates and basin characteristics for 828 gaged stations were combined to form the final database that was used in the regional regression analysis. Regional regression analysis, using generalized least-squares regression, was used to develop a set of predictive equations that can be used for estimating the 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.2-percent chance exceedance flows for rural ungaged, basins in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The final predictive equations are all functions of drainage area and the percentage of drainage basin within each of the five hydrologic regions. Average errors of prediction for these regression equations range from 34.0 to 47.7 percent. Discharge estimates determined from the systematic records for the current study are, on average, larger in magnitude than those from a previous study for the highest percent chance exceedances (50 and 20 percent) and tend to be smaller than those from the previous study for the lower percent chance exceedances when all sites are considered as a group. For example, mean differences for sites in the Piedmont hydrologic region range from positive 0.5 percent for the 50-percent chance exceedance flow to negative 4.6 percent for the 0.2-percent chance exceedance flow when stations are grouped by hydrologic region. Similarly for the same hydrologic region, median differences range from positive 0.9 percent for the 50-percent chance exceedance flow to negative 7.1 percent for the 0.2-percent chance exceedance flow. However, mean and median percentage differences between the estimates from the previous and curre

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 30° to 38.5° latitude; -85.5° to -74.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J. Curtis Weaver, Toby D. Feaster, Anthony J. Gotvald. 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20095158

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

USGS2026

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

USGS2026

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗