Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gloria-sweet |
View: | 42 times |
Download: | 4 times |
StreamStats Web StreamStats Web ApplicationApplication
streamstats.usgs.govstreamstats.usgs.gov
Audrey Ishii, P.E.Illinois Water Science Center
Overview—Streamflow Statistics
• What—Estimate of streamflow under some condition, such as the 100-year flood flow, flow durations, etc.
• Used in engineering design flows for bridges, culverts, mapping floodplains, setting water allocations, determining allowable waste discharges.
• How Computed— At stream gages--statistical analysis of historic flows, the
flood-frequency or flow duration curveUngaged sites: Regression equations relating the
characteristics of the curve to basin characteristics.
Q100 = a(TDA)b(MCS)c(PermAvg)d(Rf)
Selected discharge gages with more than 25 years of record for analysis.
Streamflow gaging stations are not distributed evenly.The density impacts the quality of regional analyses.
Percentage changes in the 100-year peak flow estimate between 1987 and 2004
1Max. = 35
Avg. = 6
Max. = 50
Avg. = 27
Max. = 29
Avg. = 4
Max. = 81
Avg. = 9
Max. = 24
Avg. = 7
Max. = 95
Avg. = 15
Max. = - 2
Avg. = - 8
Traditional Methods for Measuring Basin Characteristics
• Very labor intensive and costly• Not completely reproducible• Error-prone• Often not documented well in reports• Users need source materials and expertise• Some BC not easily reproduced by GIS methods
GIS Methods for Basin Characteristics
• Several custom software packages developed, GIS Weasel, BasinSoft, BASINS, WMS, mostly
developed for watershed modeling, often ESRI.• Needed GIS datasets not always readily available • No documented national standard methods• Several methods used for some characteristics• Users need source data and expertise• Often not documented well in reports• Some measurements are scale-dependent
StreamStats GIS computations
• Create hydro networks of rivers and streams
• Process DEM and stream network for watershed analysis
• Delineate drainage basins and measure basin characteristics
• Represent channel shape using three-dimensional models
• Connect geospatial features to time series measurements recorded at gaging sites
• Runs within ESRI Arc 8/9 software• Public domain utilities developed
jointly by U. Texas at Austin and ESRI
StreamStats Web Application
• Provides published streamflow statistics and basin characteristics for gages
• Computes basin characteristics for ungaged sites
• Provides regression-based estimates of streamflow statistics for ungaged sites
User InterfaceArcIMS
Streamflow Statistics Database
NSS Calculation
Program
GIS DatabaseArcHydro
At astreamgage
At an ungaged location
Application Examples
• Engineering Design—Bridges, culverts, flood-plain management
• Water and Land Management—Water rights adjudication, in-stream flows, fish passage/habitat studies
• Water Quality Regulation—Low flows, perennial vs. intermittent streams (TMDL’s, NPDES Permits)
• Sampling Network Design—Cover a range of desired flows
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
StreamStats_SL
Str
eam
Sta
ts_D
A
Variation in Slope with Drainage Arean=283
StreamStats Benefits
• Cost—Time to delineate and compute basin characteristics reduced from hours to minutes
• Accuracy—As good or better than manual methods• Consistency—Important for statistical validity• Accessibility—User does not need GIS expertise or
software
National StreamStats Status
• 15 states up and running• National gages web site• 18 additional states underway• Data upgrades on 3
states (PA, ID, WA)• Each state is developed
(and funded) separately
Evaluation of Illinois StreamStats
• Basin characteristics at 283 USGS rural gaging stations
• Sensitivity of basin characteristics on estimated flood quantiles
• Flood quantiles at 169 USGS rural gaging stations (random sampling)
• Reliability testing
Q100 Estimates
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
StreamStats Q100
Pu
blis
hed
Q10
0
Q100 Estimates
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
StreamStats
Pu
blis
hed
Scatter plots of preliminaryQ100 estimates using BasinSoft and manual drainage basin delineation with StreamStats
All regions, n = 164
Log-Log Scale
Arithmetic Scale
The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: PERDIFFIL_Q100
Schematic Plots
| 1 + | * | | 0.5 + | | * | | | | | +-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ 0 +-----+ +-----+ 0 + *--+--* *-----* *--+--* *--+--* *--+--* *--+--* *--+--* | | | + | | | +-----+ 0 | +-----+ 0 0 | | | 0 -0.5 + | | | | | -1 + 0 | | | -1.5 + 21 38 46 23 16 12 8 +--------+----------+--------+--------+-------+--------+----------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 REGION
Variable: DIFFBSIL_Q100
Schematic Plots
| 4000 + | * | | * 2000 + * * | * 0 | 0 0 | * 0 | +--0--+ | +-----+ | | +-----+ | 0 + *--+--* *-----* *--+--* *--+--* *--+--* *--+--* *--+--* | | + +-----+ 0 +-----+ | | * * 0 * | | * * 0 -2000 + * 0 * | | | -4000 + * | | * | -6000 + * ---------+--------+--------+---------+--------+--------+--------+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 REGION
+ Mean*----* Median+---+ Interquartile Range | 1.5 x Interquartile Range 0 < 3.0 x Interquartile Range * > 3.0 x Interquartile Range
Distribution of differences by Region
Differences are found not statistically significant by paired t-test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (p-value < 0.05), except forRegion 1: Q2, Q5, Q10 percent differences.
Average absolute maximum deviation from the mode = 1.31 percent
Reliability Testing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
5150 2050 1120 3010 2500 2280 4630 3870 4930 2800 3700 1160 575 7310
5150 2050 6120 2280 4630 3870 2820 3700 1180 583 7310
2040 1120 1760 2510 2280 4630 3870 4940 11800 3700 1180 574 7310
5150 1980 1110 6120 2490 2280 4630 3870 319 2800 3700 1190 573 7310
5150 2040 1120 3010 2500 2280 4630 3870 4940 2820 3700 1180 583 7310
5150 2040 1120 3010 2500 2280 4630 3870 4940 2830 3700 580 7310
5150 2050 1120 6110 2500 2280 4630 3870 4930 2820 3700 1150 575 7310
5150 2050 4630 3010 2500 2280 1120 3870 4950 2830 3700 1170 575 7310
0 2.94 0.89 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0.71 0 2.54 0.09 1.39
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6780 2050 1800 8440 4400 6420 5260 10100 14500 2230 2650 14300 5090 1700
6770 2050 1800 8440 4400 6430 5260 10100 14500 2230 2650 14300 5090 1700
6770 2060 1790 8440 4400 17600 5260 10100 15300 2230 7720 6860 5090 1700
2050 1800 8440 4400 6420 5260 10100 14400 2220 2680 14300 5100 1720
6780 2050 1800 8440 4400 6420 5260 10100 14500 2230 2650 14300 5090 1700
6770 2040 1800 8440 4400 6430 5260 10100 14400 2230 2650 14300 5090 1700
6780 2040 1800 8440 4410 6420 5260 10100 14500 2230 2650 14300 4810 1700
6780 2040 1800 8440 4400 6420 5260 10100 14400 2230 2650 14300 5090 1700
0.15 0.49 0.56 0 0.23 0.16 0 0 0.69 0.45 1.13 0 5.5 1.18
Q100 = 1760Q100 = 6110
StreamStats Development
• Massachusetts ArcViewIMS application 2000 - 2007• First prototype ArcHydro based Dec 2002• Development/Testing throughout 2003-04• Idaho public release Oct 2004
• Porting to ArcGIS Server• Web services• NHD Navigation/Reach indexing• Drainage-area ratio for ungaged sites• Weighted estimates for ungaged basins that cross state lines
Past
Present
N
Flood frequencies estimated by regional equations and continuous
simulation modeling in ungaged areas of the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane County, Ill.
Flood frequencies estimated by regional equations and continuous
simulation modeling in ungaged areas of the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane County, Ill.
Actual rainfall and climatologic data
Continuous simulation of rainfall-runoff using the HSPF Blackberry
Creek watershed model
Flood quantiles
QTs
Overview approach for estimating the flood quantiles at sub-basins of the Blackberry Creek watershedOverview approach for estimating the flood quantiles at sub-basins of the Blackberry Creek watershed
Flood frequency analysis
100
10000
1000
DIS
CH
AR
GE
, IN
CU
BIC
FE
ET
PE
R S
EC
ON
D
0.010.101.0010.0030.0050.0070.0099.0099.9099.99 90.00
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE, IN PERCENT
Simulated flow series at specified locations
Plot Title
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Precipitation Interception ET
Depression Infiltration
Overland flow
Land Use & Management
HSPF Sediment ModuleHSPF PEST Module
Interflow
To c
hann
els
Blackberry Creek HSPF modelBlackberry Creek HSPF model
• 49 sub-basins with drainage area varying around 1 mi2 at the headwater, flows are routed through each basin
• 6 pervious land (PERLND): cropland, grassland, forested and wooded land, pervious residential, wetland, and barren and exposed land
• 3 impervious land (IMPLND): high density urban, impervious residential, and transportation
Thiessen Method for July 1996 StormThiessen Method for July 1996 Storm
!
!
#
#
THIESSEN
Yorkville
Montgomery
St. Charles (ISWS)
Aurora (NWS)
0 2.4Miles
¯
Blackberry Watershed
Explanation# Stream Gage
! Rain Gage
24-hr rainfall = 16.91 in
24-hr rainfall = 6.59 in
Simulated July 1996 Flow (using Thiessen method) Simulated July 1996 Flow (using Thiessen method) versus Observed Hourly Flow at Yorkvilleversus Observed Hourly Flow at YorkvilleSimulated July 1996 Flow (using Thiessen method) Simulated July 1996 Flow (using Thiessen method) versus Observed Hourly Flow at Yorkvilleversus Observed Hourly Flow at Yorkville
NEXRAD TotalsNWS Stage III
July 17-18, 1996
NEXRAD TotalsNWS Stage III
July 17-18, 1996
EXPLANATION
48 hour Rainfall
(inches)
> 7.0 - 8.5
> 8.5 - 9.5
> 9.5 - 10.5
>10.5 - 11.5
>11.5- 12.5
>12.5- 13.5
>13.5- 14.5
>14.5- 15.5
>15.5- 17.0
NEXRAD Totals Averaged to WatershedJuly 17-18, 1996
NEXRAD Totals Averaged to WatershedJuly 17-18, 1996
EXPLANATION
48 hour Rainfall
(inches)
> 7.0 - 8.5
> 8.5 - 9.5
> 9.5 - 10.5
>10.5 - 11.5
>11.5- 12.5
>12.5- 13.5
>13.5- 14.5
>14.5- 15.5
>15.5- 17.0
Simulated Flow (using NEXRAD) and
Observed Hourly Flow at Yorkville
Simulated Flow (using NEXRAD) and
Observed Hourly Flow at Yorkville
Comparison of Flow Duration CurvesComparison of Flow Duration Curves Comparison of Flow Duration CurvesComparison of Flow Duration Curves
Blackberry Creek at Yorkville1990-1999 using Thiessen approach
• Aerial video and pictures provided by Kane County and IDNRAerial video and pictures provided by Kane County and IDNR
• Flood inundation mapping done by:Flood inundation mapping done by:
-Paul Schuch of Kane County-Paul Schuch of Kane County
-Phil Gaebler of USGS-Phil Gaebler of USGS
Uses of the inundation map of the July 18, 1996, event for verifying flows in ungaged areas
Uses of the inundation map of the July 18, 1996, event for verifying flows in ungaged areas
Verification with 1996 inundation map generated from video imagery—after routing with HEC-RAS
Watershed Model Calibration and VerificationWatershed Model Calibration and Verification
0
500
1000
1500
0 500 1000 1500
OBSERVED MONTHLY PEAK FLOW IN CFS
SIM
UL
AT
ED
MO
NT
HL
Y P
EA
K F
LO
W I
N
CF
S
y = 1.00 x
R2 = 0.80
Line of perfect agreementand regression line
Calibration period 1990-1995
Coefficient of Model Fit Efficiency 0.816
Correlation Coefficient 0.90
Verification period 1996-1999
Coefficient of Model Fit Efficiency 0.806
Correlation Coefficient 0.94
0
500
1,000
1,500
0 500 1,000 1,500
Observed Monthly Peak Discharge, in cfs
SIM
UL
AT
ED
MO
NT
HLY
PE
AK
FL
OW
, IN
CF
S
y = 0.82 x
R2 = 0.82
Line of perfect agreement
Regression line
Actual rainfall and climatologic data
Continuous simulation of rainfall-runoff using the HSPF Blackberry
Creek watershed model
Flood quantiles
QTs
Approach for estimating the flood quantiles at sub-basins of the Blackberry Creek watershedApproach for estimating the flood quantiles at sub-basins of the Blackberry Creek watershed
Flood frequency analysis
100
10000
1000
DIS
CH
AR
GE
, IN
CU
BIC
FE
ET
PE
R S
EC
ON
D
0.010.101.0010.0030.0050.0070.0099.0099.9099.99 90.00
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE, IN PERCENT
Simulated flow series at specified locations
Plot Title
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Five long-term precipitation records were evaluated for their representativeness of the watershed (1949-1999)Five long-term precipitation records were evaluated for their representativeness of the watershed (1949-1999)
Exceedance probability in percent
0.11.010.030.050.0
Dis
cha
rge
in c
fs
1000
10000Regional flood-frequency curve
Lower95% of regional estimates
Upper95% or regional estimates
Argonne record
Aurora record
O'Hare record
Wheaton record
Elgin record
Blackberry Creek at Yorkville
Comparison of flood-frequency curves Comparison of flood-frequency curves between simulated and observed data (1961-99)between simulated and observed data (1961-99)
Exceedence probability
0.11.010.030.050.070.090.099.099.9
Dis
cha
rge
, cf
s
10
100
1000
10000
LegendObserved Data 61-99
Lower95%
Upper95%
Observed Annual Peak-Data
Simulated with Argonne 61-99 Data
Blackberry Creek at Yorkville
Thomas, (1986) — (~60 years flood series generated from lumped unit hydrograph model; Observed streamflow has at least 20 or more years of records)
Thomas, (1986) — (~60 years flood series generated from lumped unit hydrograph model; Observed streamflow has at least 20 or more years of records)
• Simulated AMS series underpredicted Q100 by 12% but overpredicted Q2 by 13% on average. The synthetic flood-frequency curves are flatter than observed flood-frequency curves
• The model tended to underpredict flood peaks for small watersheds (1 mi2) and overpredict flood peaks for large watersheds (10 mi2)
Exceedance probability
0.11.010.030.050.070.090.0
Dis
char
ge,
cfs
100
1000
10000
51
32.5 km2
Exceedance probability
0.11.010.030.050.070.090.0
Dis
char
ge,
cfs
100
1000
10000
280
177.7 km2
Exceedance probability
0.11.010.030.050.070.090.0
Dis
char
ge,
cfs
100
1000
214
12.5 km2
Exceedance probability
0.11.010.030.050.070.090.0
Dis
char
ge,
cfs
10
100
1000208
2.6 km2
Estimate of QTs in Ungaged AreasEstimate of QTs in Ungaged Areas
Design storms
Frequency analysis
Event model
Regionalequations
streamstats.usgs.gov
Synthetic frequency curves Continuous
simulation model
Event model