USGS 15 minute stream flow data for Kings Creek on the Konza Prairie

Collected Data

This dataset contains a zipped file (dailyQs.zip) of daily streamflow data for 1,378 streamgages in 19 study regions in the conterminous U.S. from October 1, 1980 through September 30, 2013 from mostly undisturbed watersheds. USGS streamgages that were identified as being of “reference” quality in the GAGES-II dataset (https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?gagesII_Sept2011) and had at least 10 complete water years (WYs) during the study period from WY1981 through WY2013 were selected. Daily streamflow data were retrieved from the National Water Information System (NWIS) on April 18, 2016. This dataset also contains an Excel file (compWYs.xlsx) indicating for each WY during the study period whether a streamgage had a complete streamflow record (no missing values) during that year. Only complete WYs of daily streamflow data during the study period from the selected streamgages were used to compute the empirical FDC quantiles to which regression equations were fitted. These data support a concurrent publication (Over and others, 2018).

This dataset contains a zipped file (dailyQs.zip) of daily streamflow data for 1,378 streamgages in 19 study regions in the conterminous U.S. from October 1, 1980 through September 30, 2013 from mostly undisturbed watersheds. USGS streamgages that were identified as being of “reference” quality in the GAGES-II dataset (https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?gagesII_Sept2011) and had at least 10 complete water years (WYs) during the study period from WY1981 through WY2013 were selected. Daily streamflow data were retrieved from the National Water Information System (NWIS) on April 18, 2016. This dataset also contains an Excel file (compWYs.xlsx) indicating for each WY during the study period whether a streamgage had a complete streamflow record (no missing values) during that year. Only complete WYs of daily streamflow data during the study period from the selected streamgages were used to compute the empirical FDC quantiles to which regression equations were fitted. These data support a concurrent publication (Over and others, 2018).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, used streamflow measurements at 14 partial-record sites and related them to nearby USGS real-time streamgages (index sites) to provide daily mean streamflow values at ungaged (partial-record) sites. Daily mean streamflow was estimated by developing a regression relationship between streamflow at each partial-record site and the index site for the period of record of the index site. The daily mean streamflow at partial-record sites will support the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho effort to understand fish and wildlife habitat in the watershed and provide streamflow estimates for Kootenai River tributaries for use in hydraulic modeling that supports habitat restoration projects.

This data release contains daily time series estimates of natural streamflow at 5,439 GAGES-II non-reference streamgages in 19 study regions across the conterminous United States from October 1, 1980 through September 30, 2017, using five statistical techniques: nearest-neighbor drainage area ratio (NNDAR), map-correlation drainage area ratio (MCDAR), nearest-neighbor nonlinear spatial interpolation using flow duration curves (NNQPPQ), map-correlation nonlinear spatial interpolation using flow duration curves (MCQPPQ), and ordinary kriging of the logarithms of discharge per unit area (OKDAR). NNDAR, MCDAR, NNQPPQ, and MCQPPQ estimates were computed following methods described in Farmer and others (2014), with updates to the flow-duration curve modeling which is described in Over and others (2018). OKDAR estimates were computed using pooled variograms for each study region following methods described in Farmer (2016). Daily streamflow estimation was conducted by study region (hydrologic unit code level-2 regions as defined in Falcone, 2011) by building statistical models using 1,385 GAGES-II reference streamgages from mostly undisturbed watersheds as index gages (Russell and others, 2020). Estimates were then made at GAGES-II non-reference streamgages. Location information and basin characteristics for study gages were obtained from the GAGES-II dataset (Falcone, 2011). Observed daily streamflow data were retrieved from the National Water Information System (USGS, 2019). This data release contains 19 separate zip files; one for each study region. Each zip file contains an individual tab-delimited text file for each non-reference streamgage in the study region. A text file summarizing period of record information for each non-reference streamgage is provided (non-reference_gages_summary.csv). This data release also contains a text file (Model_info.csv) of regional regression equations for 27 flow quantiles that were developed in each study region in order to implement the QPPQ methods and a text file (BC_transformations.csv) describing transformations made to the GAGES-II derived basin characteristics prior to use in the regression equations. The five sets of streamflow estimates represent expected natural streamflow conditions with minimal disturbance by human activities, in other words, without the effects of regulation, diversion, land development, or other anthropogenic activities. The observed streamflow records at the non-reference streamgages were compared to the five simulated streamflow records. These performance metrics are provided at each gage for all five statistical methods (NonRef_PMs_byStation.csv) and as summaries by region (NonRef_PM_summaries_byRegion.csv). References cited: Falcone, J.A., 2011, GAGES-II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow [digital spatial dataset]: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources NSDI Node web page, https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?gagesII_Sept2011. Farmer, W.H., Archfield, S.A., Over, T.M., Hay, L.E., LaFontaine, J.H., and Kiang, J.E., 2014, A comparison of methods to predict historical daily streamflow time series in the southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5231, 34 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145231. Farmer, W. H., 2016, Ordinary kriging as a tool to estimate historical daily streamflow records, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20, 2721-2735, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2721-2016. Over, T.M., Farmer, W.H., and Russell, A.M., 2018, Refinement of a regression-based method for prediction of flow-duration curves of daily streamflow in the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5072, 34 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185072. Russell, A.M., Over, T.M., and Farmer, W.H., 2020, Cross-validation results for five statistical methods of daily streamflow estimation at 1,385 reference streamgages in the conterminous United States, Water Years

The dataset contains daily values of hydrologic and physical parameters. These daily values were calculated from continuous (15-minute) data collected from continuous water quality monitors (CWQMs) installed at five gaged sites within the Little Blue River watershed in Independence, Missouri. The data were used as input to regression models to predict Escherichia coli (E. coli) loads. Any data estimation was performed according to procedures described in the WEFTEC 2017 conference proceedings paper "Evaluation of Modeled Bacteria Loads Along an Impaired Stream Reach Receiving Discharge from a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System in Independence, Mo." Periods of missing daily values were due to equipment malfunction, fouling, or poor quality data. Daily values were estimated for the modeling input data if the period of missing daily values was less than 2 weeks, with one exception of a 3-week period at site T2. Most estimated periods covered 1 to 4 days. Although estimating water-quality parameters is discouraged, missing daily values were estimated for this study to maintain continuity for comparison of modeled results among sites. If a daily value was missing for a parameter used in a regression model, then the model would not be able to estimate a daily load for that day, and the estimated recreation-season load (the sum of all the estimated daily loads during the recreation season) would be incomplete for comparison among sites. Of the data values included in this data release, approximately 1.5 percent of water temperature, 2.0 percent of specific conductance, 1.4 percent of dissolved oxygen, 2.7 percent of pH, and 5.7 percent of turbidity daily values were estimated. Values were estimated during stormflows and base flows with the understanding that more uncertainty was introduced with the estimation of stormflow water-quality values compared to base flow because of the highly variable nature of water-quality parameters during stormflow events. If a site had an extended gap in the data that was unable to be estimated, that parameter at that site was considered unavailable for model calibration. This eliminated all CWQM parameters as calibration options at site T4, and it also eliminated turbidity at site T1 because approximately 1 year is missing in the middle of the record. Estimated values introduce increased uncertainty into the models, but this was considered acceptable given the low percentage of estimated values. Daily estimates were based on any partial record of 15-minute measurements for any day for which daily values had not been calculated. If the parameter being estimated was water temperature, the other sites were referenced and considered while making the estimate (taking into account differences in site conditions). Trends in the daily values before and after the missing value(s) were considered while estimating specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity daily values for use in the regression models. When estimating turbidity, similar stormflow events at the same site were used for comparison. For some parameters, other parameters were used to estimate the missing values, such as using the established relationship between dissolved oxygen and water temperature. If sufficient data were not available on which to base the estimation, the daily values were interpolated between days with known values. Citation: Flickinger, A.; Christensen, E. Evaluation of Modeled Bacteria Loads Along an Impaired Stream Reach Receiving Discharge from a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System in Independence, Mo. Proceedings of the WEFTEC Conference, Chicago, IL, October 1-4, 2017.

The dataset contains daily values of hydrologic and physical parameters. These daily values were calculated from continuous (15-minute) data collected from continuous water quality monitors (CWQMs) installed at five gaged sites within the Little Blue River watershed in Independence, Missouri. The data were used as input to regression models to predict Escherichia coli (E. coli) loads. Any data estimation was performed according to procedures described in the WEFTEC 2017 conference proceedings paper "Evaluation of Modeled Bacteria Loads Along an Impaired Stream Reach Receiving Discharge from a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System in Independence, Mo." Periods of missing daily values were due to equipment malfunction, fouling, or poor quality data. Daily values were estimated for the modeling input data if the period of missing daily values was less than 2 weeks, with one exception of a 3-week period at site T2. Most estimated periods covered 1 to 4 days. Although estimating water-quality parameters is discouraged, missing daily values were estimated for this study to maintain continuity for comparison of modeled results among sites. If a daily value was missing for a parameter used in a regression model, then the model would not be able to estimate a daily load for that day, and the estimated recreation-season load (the sum of all the estimated daily loads during the recreation season) would be incomplete for comparison among sites. Of the data values included in this data release, approximately 1.5 percent of water temperature, 2.0 percent of specific conductance, 1.4 percent of dissolved oxygen, 2.7 percent of pH, and 5.7 percent of turbidity daily values were estimated. Values were estimated during stormflows and base flows with the understanding that more uncertainty was introduced with the estimation of stormflow water-quality values compared to base flow because of the highly variable nature of water-quality parameters during stormflow events. If a site had an extended gap in the data that was unable to be estimated, that parameter at that site was considered unavailable for model calibration. This eliminated all CWQM parameters as calibration options at site T4, and it also eliminated turbidity at site T1 because approximately 1 year is missing in the middle of the record. Estimated values introduce increased uncertainty into the models, but this was considered acceptable given the low percentage of estimated values. Daily estimates were based on any partial record of 15-minute measurements for any day for which daily values had not been calculated. If the parameter being estimated was water temperature, the other sites were referenced and considered while making the estimate (taking into account differences in site conditions). Trends in the daily values before and after the missing value(s) were considered while estimating specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity daily values for use in the regression models. When estimating turbidity, similar stormflow events at the same site were used for comparison. For some parameters, other parameters were used to estimate the missing values, such as using the established relationship between dissolved oxygen and water temperature. If sufficient data were not available on which to base the estimation, the daily values were interpolated between days with known values. Citation: Flickinger, A.; Christensen, E. Evaluation of Modeled Bacteria Loads Along an Impaired Stream Reach Receiving Discharge from a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System in Independence, Mo. Proceedings of the WEFTEC Conference, Chicago, IL, October 1-4, 2017.

This dataset includes streamflow measurements collected at six sites in Pinnacles National Park during 2018. Data collection occurred at times when the streamflow did not include runoff from precipitation. The wading method was used to measure streamflow (Nolan, K.M. and Shields, R.R., 2000, Measurement of stream discharge by wading, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000-4036, 106 p.). By this method, the stream channel cross section is divided into subsections. For each subsection, a tape measure is used to measure the distance from the left stream bank (as facing downstream), a wading rod is used to measure the channel depth, and a velocity meter attached to the wading rod is used to measure the water velocity. For shallow stream depths, such as those at the six measurement sites, velocity is typically measured at a position that is 60 percent of the total water depth. The volumetric streamflow rate for each subsection is calculated as the product of the width, depth, and velocity of the subsection. The width of each subsection extends from the depth measurement to points that are halfway to the preceding and following depth measurement points along the stream transect. The total flow rate is calculated as the sum of the flow rates over all subsections. Total flow rates at the six sites are small, ranging from 0.06 to 0.17 cubic feet per second. These rates are considered approximate because of the non-ideal stream channel conditions at some sites and the low stream velocities.

This dataset includes streamflow measurements collected at six sites in Pinnacles National Park during 2018. Data collection occurred at times when the streamflow did not include runoff from precipitation. The wading method was used to measure streamflow (Nolan, K.M. and Shields, R.R., 2000, Measurement of stream discharge by wading, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000-4036, 106 p.). By this method, the stream channel cross section is divided into subsections. For each subsection, a tape measure is used to measure the distance from the left stream bank (as facing downstream), a wading rod is used to measure the channel depth, and a velocity meter attached to the wading rod is used to measure the water velocity. For shallow stream depths, such as those at the six measurement sites, velocity is typically measured at a position that is 60 percent of the total water depth. The volumetric streamflow rate for each subsection is calculated as the product of the width, depth, and velocity of the subsection. The width of each subsection extends from the depth measurement to points that are halfway to the preceding and following depth measurement points along the stream transect. The total flow rate is calculated as the sum of the flow rates over all subsections. Total flow rates at the six sites are small, ranging from 0.06 to 0.17 cubic feet per second. These rates are considered approximate because of the non-ideal stream channel conditions at some sites and the low stream velocities.