Discharge-Stage Relationship on Urban Streams Evaluated at USGS Gauging Stations, St. Louis, Missouri

Abstract

Extensive USGS data tables and detailed, 1 m² LiDAR surveys are used to determine the optimal power n that relates discharge (Q) to stage (h*) above channel bottom (h _o) at 39 gauging stations on small streams in the St. Louis, Missouri area, all of which have catchments of 0.6 to 220 km². Four different methodologies are employed to determine both n and h _o: (1) optimizing linearity in a plot of Q ^1/n vs. local stage (h _L) using USGS field measurements at each site; (2) optimizing linearity in a plot of Q ^1/n vs. h _L using USGS rating tables at each site; (3) a mathematical inverse method applied to the same USGS rating tables; (4) use of LiDAR data on channel geometry to determine the power dependences of channel area A and hydraulic radius H on h*, combined with the Manning and rational equations to predict n. Of these methods, only methods 2 and 3 compare favorably, and these values compare poorly with Method 1 based on field data, and with method 4 based on theoretical and empirical relationships. Because Method 4 is predictive, it provides a useful alternative to methods 1–3 that are based on USGS field measurements, which are heavily weighted toward low discharges. We conclude that the apparent values of n in the USGS rating tables are systematically too low for small streams.

Keywords

stream gauging / LiDAR topography / urban flooding / discharge / hydrology

References

[1] Arundel, S. T., Archuleta, C.-A. M., Phillips, L. A., et al., 2015. 1-Meter Digital Elevation Model Specification. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 11, Chapter B7. 25. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm11B7

[2] ASCE, 1988. The River des Peres: A St. Louis Landmark. http://sections.asce.org/stlouis/History/files/River%20des%20Peres%20%20A%20St.%20Louis%20Landmark.pdf

[3] Chow V T. Handbook of Applied Hydrology, 1964, New York: McGraw-Hill

[4] Criss R E, Lippmann J L, Criss E M, . Caves of St. Louis County, Missouri. Missouri Speleology, 2007, 45(1): 1-18.

[5] Criss R E. Statistics of Evolving Populations and Their Relevance to Flood Risk. Journal of Earth Science, 2016, 27(1): 2-8.

[6] Criss R E, Luo M M. Increasing Risk and Uncertainty of Flooding in the Mississippi River Basin. Hydrological Processes, 2017, 31(6): 1283-1292.

[7] Criss R E. Theoretical Link between Rainfall and Flood Magnitude. Hydrological Processes, 2018, 32(11): 1607-1615.

[8] Criss R E, . Foulger G R, Jurdy D M, Stein C M, . Dependence of Discharge, Channel Area, and Flow Velocity on River Stage and a Refutation of Manning’s Equation. In the Footsteps of Warren B, 2020, Hamilton: New Ideas in Earth Science, Geological Society of America Special Paper

[9] De Wiest, R. J. M., 1965. Geohydrology. John Wiley & Sons, New York FEMA, 2015. Flood Insurance Study, St. Louis County, Missouri. Volumes 1–4 Study No. 29889CV001A

[10] Groetsch C W. Inverse Problems: Activities for Undergraduates, 1999, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[11] Harrison, R. W., 1997. Bedrock Geologic Map of the St. Louis 30′×60′ Quadrangle, Missouri and Illinois. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-2533

[12] Hasenmueller E A, Criss R E. Multiple Sources of Boron in Urban Surface Waters and Groundwaters. Science of the Total Environment, 2013, 447: 235-247.

[13] Lutzen, E. E., Rockaway, J. D. Jr., 1989. Engineering Geologic Map of St. Louis County, Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources. OFM-89-256-EG

[14] Madin, I., English, J. T., 2012. Interpolating Stage-Discharge Relationships Using Serial LiDAR along the Sandy River, Oregon. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, G23A-0898

[15] MODNR, 2020. List of Impaired Waters (303d). Missouri Department of Natural Resources. https://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/index.html

[16] MSDIS, 2019. Missouri Spatial Data Information Service. (2019–11) [2020-10-9] http://msdis.missouri.edu/data

[17] Nathanson M, Kean J W, Grabs T J, . Modelling Rating Curves Using Remotely Sensed LiDAR Data. Hydrological Processes, 2012, 26(9): 1427-1434.

[18] NWS, 2020. NWS Forecast Office St. Louis, MO. https://www.weather.gov/lsx/

[19] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center Lidar 101: An Introduction to Lidar Technology, Data, and Applications. Revised, 2012, Charleston, SC: NOAA Coastal Services Center

[20] NOAA, 2017. Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: Missouri. [2020-6-1]. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html

[21] Paul J D, Buytaert W, Sah N. A Technical Evaluation of LiDAR-Based Measurement of River Water Levels. Water Resources Research, 2020, 56 4 e2019WR026810

[22] Southard, R. E., 2010. Estimation of the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Urban Basins in Missouri. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5073. 27

[23] Surdex, 2017. St. Louis LiDAR Acquisition and Processing Report; LiDAR Flight Log Report; USACE Contract G16PC00029

[24] USGS Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency. Inter-agency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee, 1981, Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination

[25] USGS, 2020. USGS Current Water Data for Missouri. (2020–5). https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/rt

[26] Vineyard J D. Physiography. In: Mineral and Water Resources of Missouri. Missouri Division of Geological Survey and Water Resources, 1967, 43: 13-15.

[27] Wahl, K. L., Thomas, W. O. Jr., Hirsch, R. M., 1995. Stream-Gaging Program of the US Geological Survey. US Geol. Survey Circular 1123, Reston, Virginia. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1123

[28] Wilson D A. Criss R E, Kusky T M. Hurricane Ike and Impact of Localized Flooding in St. Louis County, Sept. 14, 2008. Finding the Balance between Floods, Flood Protection, and River Navigation, 2009, Center for Environmental Sciences, St. Louis: St. Louis University, 22-27.