Evaluation of mean-monthly streamflow-regression equations for Colorado, 2014

Michael S. Kohn; Michael R. Stevens; Andrew R. Bock; Stephen J. Char

doi:10.3133/sir20155016

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20155016

Evaluation of mean-monthly streamflow-regression equations for Colorado, 2014

Michael S. Kohn·Michael R. Stevens·Andrew R. Bock·Stephen J. Char

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, evaluated the predictive uncertainty of mean-monthly streamflow-regression equations representative of natural streamflow conditions in Colorado. This study evaluates the predictive uncertainty of mean-monthly streamflow-regression equations developed in a 2009 U.S. Geological Survey study using streamflow data collected over the entire period of record at each streamgage through calendar year 2013. The study area for this report is limited to the Mountain, Northwest, Rio Grande, and Southwest hydrologic regions of Colorado. Data collected from the beginning of the period of record through calendar year 2013 were used to evaluate the mean-monthly streamflow equations using the same basin characteristics as in the 2009 study. U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado Division of Water Resources streamgages with at least 10 years of streamflow record and identified as representative of natural streamflow conditions were selected for this study. During the streamgage selection process, a total of 432 streamgages, composed of 278 from the 2009 study and 154 new streamgages, were identified. The updated standard error of prediction and adjusted coefficient of determination values that correspond to the mean-monthly streamflow equations developed in the 2009 study are in close agreement with the results of this study. The old streamgages performed slightly better than the new streamgages, with approximately 88 and 85 percent of the data within the prediction intervals, respectively. This result was expected because the streamgages used to develop the regression equations should yield a better performance than the new streamgages. For all hydrologic regions, approximately 87 percent of the data are within the 95-percent prediction intervals. The explanation for why fewer than 95 percent of the data are within the prediction intervals is that the data do not conform perfectly to the regression assumptions required to accurately estimate performance metrics. The equations for the Rio Grande hydrologic region had the best fit with the parametric prediction-interval assumptions, with approximately 91.8 percent of the data within the prediction interval (average 12 months). The Mountain, Northwest, and Southwest hydrologic regions had 87.8, 84.9, and 83.5 percent of the data contained within the prediction interval, respectively. Monthly adjusted coefficient of determination values were computed and have the same general pattern for all four hydrologic regions. The largest values usually occur in March or April, and the lowest values usually occur in August or September. Only the Rio Grande hydrologic region deviates from this seasonal pattern, exhibiting a decrease in adjusted coefficient of determination values in August and September, with the lowest values occurring in the winter months (December, January, and February). Generally, the adjusted coefficient of determination values for this report are just slightly less (0.76 compared to 0.79) than the values computed in the 2009 study. The similarity of values, even when tested with data not used to originally develop the mean-monthly streamflow-regression equations, provides confidence that the predictive uncertainty of mean-monthly regression equations in the 2009 study are accurate. The fact that the results for the two datasets are very similar provides assurance that when these equations are applied to locations not used to develop the equations, the standard error of prediction and adjusted-coefficient of determination error metrics should be similar to those established in the 2009 study for locations with natural streamflow. The median absolute differences between the observed and computed mean-monthly streamflow for Mountain, Northwest, and Southwest hydrologic regions are fairly uniform throughout the year, with the exception of late summer and early fall (July, August, and September), when each hydrologic region exhibits a substantial increase in median absolute percent difference. The greatest difference occurs in the Northwest hydrologic region, and the smallest difference occurs in the Mountain hydrologic region. The Rio Grande hydrologic region shows seasonal variation in median absolute percent difference with March, April, August, and September having a median absolute difference near or below 40 percent, and the remaining months of the year having a median absolute difference near or above 50 percent. In the Mountain, Northwest, and Southwest hydrologic regions, the mean-monthly streamflow equations perform the best during spring (March, April, and May). However, in the Rio Grande hydrologic region, the mean-monthly streamflow equations perform the best during late summer and early fall (August and September).

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 36.12012758978146° to 41.78769700539063° latitude; -110.45654296875° to -104.853515625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Michael S. Kohn, Michael R. Stevens, Andrew R. Bock, Stephen J. Char. 2015. Evaluation of mean-monthly streamflow-regression equations for Colorado, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20155016

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗